Training Needs Analysis: From Skill Gap to Learning Plan

Why this research matters

A step-by-step guide to conducting a rigorous Training Needs Analysis - moving beyond surveys to evidence-based, role-specific learning priorities.

Why Most TNA Processes Produce Wish Lists Instead of Plans

A Training Needs Analysis (TNA) is supposed to identify the gap between current capability and the capability the organisation needs to deliver its strategy. In practice, most TNA processes produce something far less useful: a survey of employee training preferences. Employees, understandably, report interest in training that sounds engaging or career-advancing. Managers, under pressure, nominate their teams for programmes that are convenient or popular. The result is a training calendar that is busy, expensive, and disconnected from business outcomes.

AIHR (2025) is direct on this point: fewer than 38% of organisations systematically collect data to identify skills gaps, and the majority of those that do rely solely on self-report surveys - the weakest form of evidence. The organisations that extract genuine value from TNA are those that triangulate multiple data sources and connect their findings directly to role requirements and strategic priorities.

Data Sources: Beyond the Survey

Effective TNA uses multiple data sources, triangulated to identify consistent patterns. The strongest TNA processes combine:

• Performance data: Where are outcomes consistently below target? What are the common themes in performance feedback?

• Manager interviews: Structured conversations with line managers about the capability constraints they observe in their teams. Managers see performance gaps that surveys miss.

• Business strategy: What new capabilities will the organisation need in the next 1–3 years? Forward-looking TNA is as important as gap-filling TNA.

• Exit interview data: Departing employees often cite skill development gaps and development opportunity as reasons for leaving - a leading indicator of capability risk.

• Skills assessments: For technical roles, validated assessments provide objective evidence of current capability levels.

Distinguishing Training Needs from Systemic Problems

One of AIHR's most important practitioner principles is that training cannot fix a management problem, a process problem, or a technology problem . Before designing a training intervention, always ask: "If we trained everyone to the highest standard, would the problem disappear?" If the answer is no - if the gap is caused by unclear processes, poor tools, insufficient resources, or management behaviour - then training is not the solution. A TNA that fails to make this distinction delivers an expensive intervention that has no measurable impact on performance.

Building the Learning Plan

Once genuine training needs are identified, the learning plan should specify: the target audience (specific role families or individuals, not the whole organisation); the learning objective (the specific behaviour or capability change expected); the delivery method (70:20:10 model - 70% on-the-job, 20% peer learning, 10% formal training); the timeline; and the evaluation method. The Kirkpatrick Model's four levels - Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, Results - provide a practical framework for evaluation design. Most organisations measure only Level 1 (did participants enjoy it?) and Level 2 (did they learn something?). Levels 3 and 4 - did they apply it, and did it produce results? - are where genuine ROI is demonstrated.