Whose Training Needs Are We Analysing? A proposed Framework for Literature Review



Download 101.21 Kb.
Date20.04.2016
Size101.21 Kb.
#12206



Whose Training Needs Are We Analysing?

A Proposed Framework for Literature Review

Warren C.K. Chiu, David Thompson, W.M. Mak, and K.L.Lo

Department of Management

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Hung Hum, Kowloon,

Hong Kong


Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to C.K. Chiu. The Department of Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hum, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

E-Mail: mschiuw@polyu.edu.hk



Abstract
This paper reviews the literature on training needs analysis (TNA), with the intention of organising conceptually the various approaches. A simple yet comprehensive model is proposed which consists of four aspects focusing on four related questions: who are the key initiators of the TNA studies? what are the levels of interest in the studies (i.e., organization, process, group and individual)? what methods of analysis are used? what is the intended outcome of the analysis? Based on these, four hypotheses are proposed. A literature search produced a total of 118 articles, of which 44 were randomly picked for detailed review. The findings supported two of the hypotheses. As expected, the literature was dominated by “supply-led” players, i.e. trainers and academics, but with an unexpectedly strong emphasis on the “demand-led” aspects of the organisation, especially its business results and growth. Most studies used traditional assessment methods such as interview and questionnaire, although they were not employed, as expected, to identify exclusively group training needs but other levels of interest as well. Since the majority of studies in the TNA literature are case studies, qualitatively and even anecdotally based, this paper offers a way of going beyond simple cases to wider cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives, grounded in quantitative method.
Keywords
Training needs analysis, training needs assessment, training models, training and development


Whose Training Needs Are We Analysing? A Proposed Framework for Literature Review1
Survey evidence from the UK and the USA suggests that over 90% of firms engage in some forms of development activities for managers (Loo, 1991; Constable, 1988; Saari, Johnson, McLaughlin, & Zimmerle, 1988). To design such development activities, it has become of prime importance to conduct a “training needs analysis” (TNA) prior to embarking on management development (Berger, 1993). In the U.S., TNA means Training Needs Assessment while, in the U.K., it is known as Training Needs Analysis. Although there is a difference in the label, both of them represent a systematic effort to gather information on performance problems within the organization which might be remedied by training and development (Anderson, 1993; Bennett, 1992; Ferdinand, 1988).

Supply-led Approach to TNA

The information can be obtained from a variety of sources (e.g., McGehee and Thayer, 1961; Rossett, 1987). One major source of information about training needs is what scholars describe as the “pedagogical” approach (Delahaye, 1992) or “supply-led” approach (Thompson, 1994). This approach is largely trainer-driven and anthority orientated coming from the vested interests of trainers. Traditionally, trainers are responsible for identifying training needs and the scope of the assessment can cover any level of the organization. To assess training needs, it is not an uncommon practice for trainers to adopt a skill model or taxonomy as a framework to help compiling a list of tasks, and ask job incumbents to indicate their training needs on every item on the list. However, this approach will unwittingly introduce problems to needs assessment. Trainers often lack the line management experience to understand the real operational issues (Bucalo, 1984) and, also, the skill models on which

___________________________________________________________________________

1:This project is funded by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University Central Research Fund (# 0353-027-A3-230)
task selection is often based (e.g., Powers, 1987; Whetten and Cameron, 1991) usually

capture imprecise trait labels and global behavioral descriptions (Campbell et.al., 1970). These trait labels and behavioral descriptions may simply reflect the trainers’ preconceptions of the job which may or may not match with that of the potential trainees.



Demand-led Approach to TNA

Business-oriented. The supply-led approach of TNA has been increasingly challenged by changes in business world which emphasize the “bottom-line”, profitability, growth, etc. This leads to such sources of information about training needs as the organization’s business plan. Ferdinard (1988) described TNA as a “ rational process by which an organization determines how to develop or acquire the human skills it needs in order to achieve its business objectives”, hence, it is anticipatory in nature intending to meet long-term organizational objectives (Snape, Redman, Bamber, 1994). Thompson (1994) has identified this with a “demand-led” approach. Top managers - chief executives and directors - are committed to investment in training because they see its importance to the success of the business. The key to the approach is the business plan, which establishes the context and mission of the organisation. This therefore identifies the context for training and demonstrates how the training effort is integrated with the wider business purpose. Demand-led training suggests needs analysis techniques such as management by objectives (MBO) as a means of linking individual objectives with business purpose and of identifying the areas where the individual may need training in order to achieve his or her objectives. To summarize, this business-oriented approach is characterized by a top-down, finance-driven process (e.g., profit, growth) emphasizing more on the business outcome and less on employees’ needs.

Process- oriented. Besides the business-oriented approach, we propose that the “demand-led” aspect of TNA has another counterpart -- the process-oriented approach. The process-oriented approach is different from the business-oriented approach in terms of its scope and emphasis. While the business-oriented approach focuses on the whole organization, the scope of the process-oriented approach is mainly on a localized division or a department. Very often, training need arises because of the introduction of new processes such as Business Process Reengineering, Total Quality Management (TQM), ISO9000 in a subdivision of an organization. The purpose of identifying training needs at this level is to ensure the new work processes can be maintained in an effective and efficient manner.

Trainer-centred. The “demand-led” approach (i.e., business and process oriented) may be contrasted with a more trainee-centered approach or what Delahaye (1992) described as the “andragogical” approach. Unlike the “demand-led” approach, the trainee-centered approach is characterized by a bottom-up, self-development driven (e.g., performance, promotion) emphasizing more on employees’ needs and less on the business outcome or work efficiency. The trainee-centered approach often relies on self-assessment as the source of information. Research findings suggest that self-assessment may be a true reflection of trainees’ development needs and should be considered as an important component of a valid needs assessment process (McEnery & McEnery, 1987). However, self-assessment of training needs is also under strong criticism because it may sometimes reflect trainees’ training wants but not the actual training needs (Nowack, 1991). Trainees tend to be more lenient on their ratings and make relatively more attributions (i.e., excuses) to external environment. All these tendencies would inevitably undermine the accuracy of the TNA data.

Using this framework of TNA approaches, it is interesting to know whether a particular approach is more prevalent than the others in the TNA literature. However, the majority of the studies in the TNA literature has been qualitative and anecdotal in nature, making the detection of these differences in TNA approaches difficult. One major purpose of the present research study is to review the literature on training needs analysis with a view to organizing conceptually the various TNA approaches. A simple and yet comprehensive framework is proposed here which attempts to identify the prevalent TNA practice as reported in the literature (see Figure 1).

______________________________

INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE

______________________________

The model consists of four aspects aiming at answering four related questions. The four questions being: (1) who are the key initiators of the TNA studies? (2) what are the levels of interest the TNA studies seek? (3) what methods are used? and (4) what is the intended purpose of the analysis? We believe that the background of an initiator would, to a great extent, affect the approach used in TNA. For example, an organizational representatives tend to use a “demand-led” approach, whereas, the trainers and trainees would adopt the “supply-led” and the “trainee-centered” approach respectively. Although the “supply-led” and the “trainee-centered” approach are equally important compared to the “demand-led” approach, we believe that the trainers are still the dominant key initiators. The dominance of trainers in this field would logically imply that the level of interest is mainly “supply-led”. That is, trainers would concern more on the group level for their competency based analysis and less on other levels of interest. The “supply-led” approach would further imply that trainers would take an active role in assessing training needs. Examples of these methods include interviews or observations (e.g., assessment centres) of which trainers play a major role in needs assessment as well as questionnaires designed by trainers (e.g., job analysis questionnaires) to collect inputs from job incumbents on a specific job position. Finally, the “supply-led” approach will further imply that most TNA studies were conducted with an aim to enhancing managerial and professional effectiveness. Based on the above arguments, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Trainers as a group constitutes the largest proportion of initiators of TNA among all other groups of initiators;

Hypothesis 2: The proportion of TNA studies targeted at the group level is larger than at other levels;

Hypothesis 3: The largest proportion of assessment methods used in assessing training needs are either done by trainers themselves or through some forms of

structured questionnaires designed by trainers;

Hypothesis 4: The largest proportion of the intended purpose of the TNA activities aims

at enhancing managerial/professional effectiveness.
Method

Sampling Strategy

A literature search was undertaken through the CD-ROM of the University Libraries system for the past twenty-five years. Initially, four databases were inspected. They are ANBAR, Psylit, ABI/Inform and ERIC. Subsequently, ERIC was dropped from because the studies are mainly for education rather than for business. In searching for relevant articles, many key phrases have been used (e.g., managerial training, training needs, self-development). However, many articles identified using these phrases were not directly relevant to TNA. We decided to restrict the search to two key phrases that are directly related to TNA. These two phrases are training needs analysis and training needs assessment. As a result, 130 articles were identified, of which two were from ANBAR, 29 from Psylit, 99 from ABI/Inform. Among the 130 articles, 12 were cross-referenced by more than one database and that reduced the total number of articles to 118. Next we randomly picked half of the articles, that is fifty-eight, for the review. Of these fifty-eight articles, 14 were dropped during the review process because the content was not relevant to TNA even though they carried the key phrases of TNA in the text. A complete list of the 44 studies is included in the Appendix.



Classification Scheme of the Proposed Framework

The TNA model covered four aspects. The first aspect was the key initiators. A key initiator was defined here as the one who initiated the study. In most cases, the key initiators might well be the author of the study but, occasionally, the author simply reported on a TNA study conducted by someone else. In this case, the originator(s) of the study should be considered as the key initiator(s). A TNA study could be initiated by organizational representatives (e.g., CEO, the director, or the manager), trainers (e.g. training consultants or academics), or from the trainees themselves.

Also, the model tries to distinguish various levels of interests the TNA studies sought. These levels can be macro (i.e., the business performance), micro (i.e., individual performance) or at a level somewhere in between (i.e., the performance of a localized system or a specific incumbent group). There are together four possible levels at this aspect. If the aims of the study targeted at the macro level involving analyses of organizational goal or companywide changes like cultural change, marketing change, we would consider it as the organizational level. A study is classified as the process level if the training need arises because of the introduction of new processes such as TQM or ISO9000 in a localized division or a department. The third level is at the task level. At this level, training is catered to the needs of a group of job incumbents on some specific job related skills. Finally, training programs may focus on the needs a person. The skills being taught in these training programs are generic in nature (e.g., stress management, problem-solving skills, presentation skills) with no direct job relevancy and are highly transferable from job to job.

The third aspects of the model is about the different assessment methods used for the need assessment. If the TNA is “demand-led” in nature, the techniques should be different from those at the other three categories. A demand-led approach to TNA would employ methods such as organizational scanning and SWOT. The former example is a useful method for identifying internal needs of the organization whereas the later put the organization in a environment context when assessing needs for development. To analyze processes or systems, methods like process analysis or taskflow analysis are good examples of this category. The third category of methods include various types of interviews or observations (e.g., assessment center, peer evaluation). Very often, the assessment involves an interviewer or observer to solicit responses from respondents. Compared to the last two kinds of methods, this assessment approach may require more subjective interpretation on the part of the assessors. Finally, there are methods used to assess the development needs of an individual. A good example of such a self-assessment method is think aloud protocol.

Finally, it covers the kinds of intended purpose of the analysis. These levels differ in the sense that whether the study mainly aims at the organizational effectiveness (e.g., profit, growth, etc.), the system/process effectiveness (e.g., effectiveness, efficiency), managerial effectiveness, or personal effectiveness.

Interjudge reliability

Before coding the contents of the sampled studies, a training session was held having team members reviewing five articles together using the classification scheme. The purpose of the training session was to ensure a uniform interpretation of the coding scheme. Next, the team members were divided up into two pairs. Each pair was responsible to review half of the sampled articles. Team members of each pair coded the articles independently according to the classification scheme and the coding results were then compared with that of the other team member. The Kappa statistics (Cohen, 1960) was used as a measure of agreement between the two pairs of judges on the sampled articles using nominal scales.



Results

The following section first reports the Kappa statistics on interjudge agreement on the four aspects of our proposed model. It is followed by reporting the observed proportions of various categories in the model. Finally, hypothesis testings will be conducted using a series of Huberty one-tailed t-tests to examine whether the observed proportions are significantly greater than chance.

Interjudge Reliability

Table 1 gives summary statistics for each of the dimensions proposed in the present model. The results shows that interjudge reliabilities of the four dimensions are extremely high. The values of Kappa are between .75 to .94. The degree of agreement (corrected for the amount expected by chance) is at least 75% between any randomly selected reviewer. In fact, interjudge reliabilities in two cases are up to 91% and 94%. All the values of kj are significantly greater than chance.

_____________________________

INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

_____________________________
The key initiators

The overall proportions of the three proposed initiating sources of TNA, the demand-led, the supply-led, and the trainee-centered, are 13%, 87%, and zero%, respectively. Of the 87% of the supply-led contributors, two thirds are affiliated with universities and the other one-third are training consultants. To find out whether the observed proportion of trainers/academics is actually better than chance (i.e., 33% in a three category case), the Huberty one-tailed z test was used (Stevens, 1986, p.257). The result of the test indicated that the observed proportion was highly significant, z = 11, p < .0001. The findings confirmed the hypothesis 1 and hence supported the idea that the key initiators of TNA in the literature are predominantly trainers and academics. Contributions solely made from top or line managers (i.e., demand-led approach) are rare and none so far was found from trainees (i.e., trainee-centered approach).

Another interesting observation is that, despite the fact that joint effort among players of different professional backgrounds are encouraged, there was little evidence that academics, consultants and managers would work together in TNA research. Of all the papers reviewed, there were only three mix cases with an academic and a manager co-authoring a paper.

Levels of Analysis

Results showing that the proportion of studies done on analyzing organizational needs is the highest (36%) and this is followed by the group level (26%) and the process level (24%). Investigations at the individual levels are relatively few (14%). The Huberty one-tailed z test indicated that the observed proportion found in the group level was not significant, z = .5, p = n.s. Although we cannot find support for the Hypothesis 2, the findings are not entirely unexpected. The findings suggest that organizational needs often take precedence over that of the groups or individuals. It is the organization determines what the training needs are in order to meet with its business objectives. The Huberty one-tailed z- statistic test indicated that the observed proportion found in the organizational level was significant, z = 2.2, p < .05. Again, the findings confirmed, to a certain extent, a frequent use of demand-led approach in the TNA literature at the level of analysis regardless of who are the initiators.

Such a demand-led approach is even more obvious when the data are plotted against time intervals. Figure 2 shows that while number of TNA studies are steadily increasing, the rate of increase in demand-led approach is the fastest. According to the present findings, the approach first surfaced in the early eighties and then increased drastically from late eighties onward. A similar pattern can be found for the process level though the trend of increase is less extreme. One of the possible reasons for an exponential growth in the demand-led approach may due to the rapid changes in business environment during the past two decades making the demand-led approach a priority in TNA.

_____________________________

INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE

______________________________


A significant portion of the demand-led studies aims at improving the linkages between organizational strategies and TNA. These studies criticize one way or the other, the limitations of some existing models. The existing models are called by different names. They are coined as the traditional model (Bucalo, 1984), the objective model (Hiebert & Smallwood, 1987), products-oriented model (Macleod, 1987), closed system model (McClelland, 1993), and deficit model (Anderson, 1994). There are several themes of criticism with regard to these existing models. Many of the existing models were accused to be too simplistic (McClelland, 1993), wrongly assumed that jobs are invariable embedded in a relatively static business environment (Hiebert & Smallwood, 1987), measured merely past deficiencies (Anderson, 1994), failed to link with the organizational operations (Bucalo, 1984) and corporate strategies (Macleod, 1987). The contributors recommended that TNA models should be more comprehensive, adopt an open system approach, anticipate future efficiencies and align closely with organizational operations and strategies.

Assessment Methods

The overall proportions of the four kinds of assessment methods, the organizational assessment, the process assessment, the assessment by trainers, and self-assessment, are 15%, 9%, 40%, and 36% respectively. The findings confirmed the Hypothesis 3 that the methods used in many studies are mostly traditional means such as interviews, observations and questionnaires. Again, the Huberty one-tailed z test indicated that the observed proportion of “supply-led” methods was significant, z = 3.48, p < .05 (assessed by trainers). However, it should be noted that most of the traditional assessment methods were not employed to assess group needs. Most of the studies using interviews and observations to identify training needs for other levels of interest.



Intended Purpose of TNA

The overall proportions of the four possible beneficiaries are 39% for the organization, 28% for the effectiveness of the process, 22% for specific incumbent groups, and 11% for the personal effectiveness. The Huberty one-tailed z test for testing the Hypothesis 4 was not significant. However, it is worthwhile to note that regardless of what levels of analysis the TNA is conducted (whether it is at the level of the process, the group or the individuals), the manifested purpose is either obscure or often targeted to the effectiveness of the organization. A post hoc analysis reviewed that organizational outcome was the most cited objective for conducting TNA studies (the Huberty one-tailed z-statistic test was significant at z = 3.0, p < .01). One reason is that the trainers who provide service to the organization will tend to highlight the benefits to the organization so that their proposals would be accepted by the senior management. Yet, in essence, the purpose of conducting the TNA should be beneficial to the parties other than the organization. The stated purpose, thus, depends very much on who is the user of the service. Since individuals are rarely the buyers, few studies would mention that the benefits are targeted to individuals. Nevertheless, individuals are, in fact, benefited.



Discussion

The present paper contributes to the TNA in several ways. First, it is the only paper, as far as we know, that uses quantitative method to review the TNA literature. The great majority of articles reviewed were based, to a greater or lesser extent, on case study evidence. Some were carefully conducted studies. For example, Nelson, Whitener and Philcox’s recent study of US Internal Revenue Service (1995) is an empirical test of the “content framework” derived from the literature of McGehee and Thayer (1961) and Ostroff and Ford (1989). But most of the articles did not derive data in such a systematic way. All too often, an interesting framework of new approach was supported by no more than the authors’ experience and anecdotal evidence. It is to be hoped that use of quantitative methods in the present paper will encourage more systematic collection and analysis of data in studies which go beyond single cases to embrace wider cross-sectional and longitudinal perspectives. This suggests the value of greater collaboration between academic researchers, training and development practitioners as “suppliers” and business managers as “demand-led” users.

Second, we have successfully introduced a simple but reliable model centering on the concepts of different TNA approaches to capture various aspects of TNA. It builds on the pioneering work of McGehee and Thayer (1961) and Ostroff and Ford (1989). These writers focused on level and content. To these important aspects, we have added methods of analysis and expected outcomes, as a means of enriching understanding of the analytical process. The model is therefore useful in guiding further research into TNA and in helping to classify future studies. It is clear that some cells in the matrix have received less attention than others.

Third, the findings of the present paper shed lights on what range of work has been done and what may remain to be done . We confirmed as expected that the TNA literature was dominated by the supply-led initiators (i.e., trainers and academics). Nevertheless, the supply-led initiators did not focus on one particular level of analysis. They covered pretty evenly on three of the four levels (i.e., organizational, process and group) and less so in the individual level. In addition, the TNA literature was flooded with recommendations on what methods should be used, nonetheless, the development of methods is lagging behind in a number of ways. First, although the tools being recommended are useful to the training field, most of them are generic in nature and not developed originally for needs assessment purposes. For example, in a series of papers, McClelland (1994) introduced four data-collection tools, namely, surveys, individual interviews, focus groups and on-site observation, as four important TNA tools. Others (e.g., Stein, 1981; Schwarzkopf, Schwendiman, Butler,1980) would modify some generic tools and found applications in the assessment of training needs. These generic tools may be appropriate under the existing TNA models, however they are somewhat inadequate with the advancement of new assessment models (e.g., the emphasis on linking training with corporate strategies and anticipating future performance efficiencies on a changing business environment). A few studies have introduced new tools, for example, the action research (Anderson, 1994) to fit in the new TNA models. Nevertheless, these tools are primitive, without specific guidelines. In addition, there are no empirical studies to validate these models. There is another limitation on the TNA methods.

Organizations tend to neglect the developmental needs of individuals. As a result, there are not much self-assessment tools developed for self-development purposes. One of the major reasons is that the assessment of individual needs is very expensive and in the company’s perspective, the needs of an individual is not important to bottom-line issues. It is clear from our evidence that the trend is now concentrating on the business effectivenss rather than the personal effectiveness. What the focus of the training debate should be on how to balance the needs of the individual and the organisations. There is a danger that if it moves too far away from the individual needs to the business bottom-line issues, in the long run, a demoralised workforce will hinder the growth of the organisation.

The strength of our approach is also a limitation. It focused on and organises a particular “moment” in the training and development cycle. It helps to clarify that moment but, in doing so, it is ignoring the total sequence of analysis, design, implementation, evaluation. This risks a fragmented look at what is in reality so often a more integrated process. It can also give an impression that TNA is done once at the beginning of training and development, whereas it is often part of an integrative process, revisited in the light of subsequent experience. Future research should examine the whole process of TNA rather than a cross-sectional analysis. A second limitation of the present study is that we have confined ourselves to published articles, both academic or practitioner, which are available to us from the three chosen databases. There may be a lot of TNA articles and activities not brought to our attention, and hence, the findings of this study may be somewhat limited. Interpretation of the findings should be done with this caution in mind.




References
Anderson, A.H., Successful Training Practice: A Manager’s Guild to Personnel Development, Blackwell, Oxford, 1993.
Anderson, G., “A proactive model for training needs analysis”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.18 No.3, 1994, pp.23-28.
Bennett, R., Dictionary of Personnel and Human Resources Management, Pitman, London, 1992.
Berger, M., “A market-led training needs analysis - Is the training needs analysis outmoded”, Industrial & Commercial Training , Vol.25 No.1, 1993, PP.27-30.
Bucalo, J.P., “An operational approach to training needs analysis”, Training and Development Journal, Vol.38 No.12, December 1984, pp.80-4.
Campell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler,E.E. and Weick, K.E.Jr., Managerial Behavior, Performance and Effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York,1970.
Cohen, J.A. “Coeffecient of agreement for nominal scales”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20, 1960, pp.37-46.
Constable, J., “Developing the competent manager in a UK context”, Report for the Manpower Services Commission, UK, 1988.
Delahaye, B. (1992). A theoretical context of management development and education. In Barry J. Smith (ed.), Management Development in Australia. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp. 1-18.
Ferdinand, B., “ Management training needs analysis (TNA)”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Sep-Oct 1988, pp.27-31.
Hiebert, M.B. and Smallwood, W.N., “Now for a completely different look at needs analysis”, Training and Development Journal, Vol.41 No.5, May 1987, pp.75-9.
Loo, R., “Management training in Canadian organisations”, Journal of Management Development, Vol.10 No.5, 1991, pp.60-72.
Macleod, J.S., “Assessing training needs”, Employment Relations Today, Vol.14 No.4, Winter 1987-88, pp.341-4.
McClelland, S.B., “Training needs assessment”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.17 No.1, 1993, pp.12-17.
McCllelland, S.B., “Training needs assessment data-gathering methods: Part 1, survey questionnaires”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.18 No.1, 1994, pp.22-6.
McCllelland, S.B., “Training needs assessment data-gathering methods: Part 2 - Individual interviews”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.18 No.2, 1994, pp.27-31.
McCllelland, S.B., “Training needs assessment data-gathering methods: Part 3, focus groups”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.18 No.3, 1994, pp.29-32.
McCllelland, S.B., “Training needs assessment data-gathering methods: Part 4, on-site observations”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.18 No.5, 1994, pp.4-7.
McGehee, W. and Thayer, P.W., Training in Business and Industry, John Wiley, New York, 1961.
McEnery, J. and McEnery J.M., “Self-rating in management training needs assessment: A neglected opportunity”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol.60 No.1, March 1987, pp.49-60.
Nowack, K.M., “A true training needs analysis”, Training & Development Journal, Vol.45 No.4, April 1991, pp.69-73.
Ostroff, C. and Ford, J.K., “Assessing training needs : Critical levels of analysis”, In Training and Development in Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1989, pp.25-62.
Powers, E. A., “Enchancing managerial competence : the American Management Association Competence Programme”, Journal of Management Development, Vol.6 No.4, 1987.
Rossett, A., Training Needs Assessment, Educational Techology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, 1987.
Saari, L.M., Johnson, T.R., Mclaughlin, S.D. and Zimmerle, D.M., “ A survey of management training and education practices in US companies”, Personnel Psychology, Vol.4, 1988, pp.731-43.
Schwarzkopf, K., Schwendiman, G.and Butler, R., “Feedback works: show your boss”, Training & Development Journal, Vol.34 No.12, December 1980, pp.99-101.
Snape, E., Redman, T., and Bamber, G.J. Management training and developing. Managing Managers: Strategies and techniques for human resource management, pp. 68-95. Blackwell, 1994.
Stein, D.S., “Designing performance-oriented training programs”, Training & Development Journal , Vol.35 No.1, January 1981, pp.12-16.
Stevens, J., Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Science, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1986.
Thompson, D., Developing Managers for the New NHS, Longman, Essex, 1994.
Whetten, D.A., and Cameron, K.S., “Developing management skills “, (2nd Edn), Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 1991.
Table 1
Statistics for Measuring Agreement on the Four Aspects of the Model
______________________________________________________________________

Category i nij2 Pi kj Var (kj) ki/SE (kj)

______________________________________________________________________
Actors 174 .97 .91 .07 3.5**
Levels 165 .82 .75 .11 2.3*
Approach 168 .96 .94 .01 9.4***
Purpose 163 .85 .79 .003 15.8****

______________________________________________________________________


* p < .05

** p < .01

*** p < .001

**** p < .0001

Figure 1
The Proposed TNA Model


Key Actors Level of Interest Methods Purposes

___________________________________________________________________________

Organizations e.g., Business Profits Planning

Organizational

representatives
Process e.g., Programme Efficiency
Trainers

Groups e.g., Assessment Centres Effectiveness

Centres
Trainees

Individual e.g., Performance Self-assessment Self- development

___________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2
Distributions of TNA Studies by Year



Number of Studies

76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95


Year

Appendix: Studies Sampled for the Analysis
Anderson, G., “A proactive model for training needs analysis”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.18 No.3, 1994, pp.23-28.
“A new-style management development programme at Hertfordshire County Council”, Industrial Relations Review & Report, No.514, June 1992, p.10-13.
Batley, T., “Management education for professional engineers”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.14 No.7, 1990, 9-16.
Berger, M., “A market-led training needs analysis - Is the training needs analysis outmoded”, Industrial & Commercial Training , Vol.25 No.1, 1993, PP.27-30.
Blum, S.R., Feldman, S. and Heller, K., “Responsibilities and training needs of mental health administrators”, Administration and Policy in Mental Health, Vol. 18 No.4, March 1991, pp.257-69.
Boak, G.and Stephenson, Mac., “Training needs analysis and time management”, Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol.19 No.6, Nov-Dec 1987, pp.11-12.
Bucalo, J.P., “An operational approach to training needs analysis”, Training and Development Journal, Vol.38 No.12, December 1984, pp.80-4.
Carroll, B.W., “Perceived roles and preparation experiences of elementary counselors : Suggestions for changes”, Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, Vol.27 No.3, February 1993, pp.216-26.
Collins, P.D. and Mullen, J., “Training administrators for improved service delivery to small farmers: Experiences from Somalia”, Internaational Journal of Public Administration, Vol.15 No.8, 1992, pp.1553-78.
Davis, B., “A flexible, convenient way to assess your training needs”, HRMagazine, Vol.40 No.10, October 1995, pp.114-7.
Dolliver, S.K., “To train or not to train?... an essential question”, Supervision, Vol.54 No.10, October 1993, pp.12-15.
Eidgahy, S.Y., “Management of diverse HRD programs: Challenges and opportunities”, Manage, Vol.46 No.3, Febrary 1995, pp.15-19.
Fairbairns, J., “Plugging the gap in training needs analysis”, Personnel Management, Vol.23 No.2, pp.43-45.
Ferdinand, B., “Management training needs analysis (TNA)”, Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol.20 No.5, Sep-Oct 1988, pp.27-31.
Fisher, S.A. and Frank, G.B., “Gaining the most from your training dollars: A systems approach to staff training”, National Public Accountant, Vol.37 No.3, pp.18-21.
Ford, J.K. and Wroten, S.P., “Introducing new methods for conducting training evaluation and for linking training evaluation to program redesign”, Personnel Psychology, Vol.37 No.4, Winter 1984, pp.651-65.
Gent, M.J. and Dell’Omo, G.G., “The needs assessment solution”, Personnel Administration, Vol.34 No.7, July 1989, pp.82-4.
Goalder, J.S., “Assessing OD needs in complex organizations”, Training & Development Journal, Vol.39 No.2, February 1985, pp.60-7.
Harp, C., “Link training to corporate mission”, HRMagazine, Vol.40 No.8, August 1995, pp.65-8.
Hiebert, M.B. and Smallwood, W.N., “Now for a completely different look at needs analysis”, Training and Development Journal, Vol.41 No.5, May 1987, pp.75-9.
Kindermann, S.S., Matteo, T.M. and Morales,E., “HIV training and perceived competence among doctoral students in psychology”, Professional Psychology Research and Practice, Vol.24 No.2, May 1993, pp.224-7.
Kosch, S.G. and Dalllman, J.J., “Essential areas for behavioral science training: A needs assessment approach”, Journal of Medical Education, Vol.58 No.8, August 1983, pp.619-26.
LaVan, H., Coye, R.W. and Latona, J.C., “Training and development in the Franchisor - Franchisee relationship”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.12 No.3, 1988, pp.27-31.
Macleod, J.S., “Assessing training needs”, Employment Relations Today, Vol.14 No.4, Winter 1987-88, pp.341-4.
McClelland, S., “A systems approach to needs assessment”, Training & Development, Vol.46 No.8, August 1992, pp.51-3.
McClelland, S.B., “Training needs assessment”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.17 No.1, 1993, pp.12-17.
McCllelland, S.B., “Training needs assessment data-gathering methods: Part 1, survey questionnaires”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.18 No.1, 1994, pp.22-6.
McCllelland, S.B., “Training needs assessment data-gathering methods: Part 2 - Individual interviews”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.18 No.2, 1994, pp.27-31.
McCllelland, S.B., “Training needs assessment data-gathering methods: Part 3, focus groups”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.18 No.3, 1994, pp.29-32.
McCllelland, S.B., “Training needs assessment data-gathering methods: Part 4, on-site observations”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.18 no.5, 1994, pp.4-7.
McEnery, J. and McEnery J.M., “Self-rating in management training needs assessment: A neglected opportunity”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol.60 No.1, March 1987, pp.49-60.
Mitchell, E.J. and Hyde, A.C., “Training demand assessment: Three case studies in planning training programs”, Public Personnel Management, Vol.8 No.6, Nov-Dec 1979, pp.360-73.
Nelson, R.R., “The assessment of end-user training needs”, Communications of the ACM, Vol.38 No.7, pp.27-39.
Oppenheimer, R.J., “An alternative approach to assessing management development needs”, Training & Development Journal, Vol.36 No.3, March 1982, pp.72-6.
ReVelle, J.B., “Training programs help ensure continual improvement in levels of product or service quality”, Indudstrial Engineering, Vol18 No.7, July 1986, pp.68-76.
Schneier, C.E., Guthrie, J.P.and Olian, J.D., “A practical approach to conducting and using the training needs assessment”, Public Personnel Management, Vol.12 No.2., Summer 1988, pp.191-205.
Schutz, J.A., “Methodogy for computer training in a hospital setting”, Computers in Healthcare, Vol.8 No.4, April 1987, pp.28-34.
Schwarzkopf, K., Schwendiman, G.and Butler, R., “Feedback works: show your boss”, Training & Development Journal, Vol.34 No.12, December 1980, pp.99-101.
Scott, D. and Deadrick, D., “The nominal group technique: Applications for training needs assessment” Training and Development Journal, Vol.36 No.6, June 1982, pp.26-33.
Stein, D.S., “Designing performance-oriented training programs”, Training & Development Journal , Vol.35 No.1, January 1981, pp.12-16.
Sullivan, M.B. and McFarlane, F.R., “Training needs identification and assessment of rehabilitation counselors”, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, Vol.22 No.2, December 1978, pp.142-5.
“Training and development supports strategic management at Hackney” Industrial Relations Review & Report, No.526, December 1992, pp. 9-13.
Warner, A., “Where business schools fail to meet business needs”, Personnel Management, Vol.22 No.7, July 1990, pp.52-6.
Weitzel, S.L., Levin, B.L. and Friedman, R.M., “A research and training needs assessment of Florida’s mental health system”, Journal of Mental Health Administration, Vol.16 No.2, Fall 1989, pp.111-116.
Download 101.21 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page