Use this training needs analysis template to put the required work beside the exact observation and the next check. The filled worksheet helps a team distinguish a missing work prerequisite from a learning question worth investigating.
Define the work someone should be able to do
In this original fictional handoff-form pilot, the required task is:
Given an accessible approved form and supplied field definitions, create a handoff entry identifying the item ID, current version, and next owner.
The conditions belong in the requirement. A person who cannot open the form has not had a chance to demonstrate the form task. An undefined field makes it difficult to judge whether the writer chose the right value.
CIPD's learning-needs guidance connects capability requirements with evidence and an appropriate response. It also distinguishes a review for a specific training activity from an ongoing organizational learning-needs analysis. This worksheet addresses the specific handoff-form request.
Compare three evidence stages
Choose a case in the example to read its source, observation, possible explanations, and proposed next step. The cases are authored teaching material; they are not employee assessments.
| Evidence stage | Exact supplied observation | Next check |
|---|---|---|
| A1: Access prerequisite | The approved form link displays “Access denied.” No form-field response is available. | Ask the process owner to confirm access, then observe the task when the form is accessible. |
| B1: Unclear wording | The form opens. Its guidance says “identify the owner.” The demonstration writer asks whether this means the current reviewer or next recipient. No completed entry is supplied. | Have the process owner define the field, then offer a short practice case if needed. |
| B2: Later practice evidence | A separate later hypothetical record defines owner as “next person receiving the handoff.” A practice response names the current reviewer. | Check how the writer chose that person and try a focused case distinguishing reviewer from next recipient. |
Case A does not establish a form skill gap. Case B1 does not establish that the writer lacks the knowledge: the instruction itself is ambiguous. B2 supplies a clearer requirement and a response that differs from it, so a focused learning question can now be investigated.
Keep B1 and B2 separate. The later definition does not make the earlier instruction clear retroactively, and the later response does not show what the writer would have done in B1.
Fill the worksheet with decisions someone can act on
The eight fields connect the task to a response. This is a completed B1 review:
| Worksheet field | Filled B1 entry |
|---|---|
| Required work | Create an entry with item ID, current version, and next owner using an accessible approved form and supplied definitions. |
| Supplied condition and source ID | B1: form opens; guidance says “identify the owner.” |
| Exact observation | The writer asks whether owner means current reviewer or next recipient. No completed response is supplied. |
| Possible explanations | The field wording may be unclear. The writer's understanding of the intended handoff rule has not been demonstrated. |
| Missing check | Obtain an explicit definition from the process owner and inspect a response under that definition. |
| Proposed step outside training | Clarify the field instruction. |
| Tentative learning objective | Not yet specified; clarify the requirement first. |
| Evidence and review needed | Record the definition, observe a short practice response if needed, and review the result with the process owner. |
The next action has an owner and a purpose even though no course has been selected. That is a useful result of the analysis.
For B2, a tentative learning objective could be: “Given a handoff scenario that identifies the current reviewer and next recipient, select the next recipient as the next owner.” A further practice response and the writer's explanation would help the reviewer decide what support is appropriate. One wrong response alone does not establish its cause or justify a course for everyone.
For A1, keep the tentative learning objective open. First make the form accessible through the team's normal process and observe the task. The worksheet should not turn an access message into a personnel rating.
Replace a blanket request with differentiated next steps
Choose Blanket request to inspect:
Book handoff-form training for everyone.
Then choose Evidence-based next steps. The request becomes three review actions:
- A1: Confirm the access prerequisite before observing form performance.
- B1: Clarify which person the owner field means, then inspect a response under that instruction.
- B2: Explore how the writer selected the current reviewer and test a focused practice question about the next recipient.
The revised view changes the proposed response, not the evidence records. It does not grant access, edit the real form, book training, or certify anyone's ability.
Finish the analysis with a next check that could change the decision. If the requirement is unclear, resolve it. If a practice response raises a specific learning question, investigate that question before expanding the training request.
Copy a prompt for your needs review
Create one complete self-contained HTML training needs analysis worksheet.
Specific work requirement and conditions: [PASTE]
Training request and who raised it: [PASTE]
Exact observations with source IDs and dates: [PASTE]
Available instructions, access, tools, and other prerequisites: [PASTE]
Possible explanations and checks still needed: [PASTE]
Process owner and proposed review: [PASTE]
Use only supplied evidence. Keep observations separate from explanations.
Do not diagnose a cause, rate an employee, invent test results, or decide
that a course is required. Distinguish a prerequisite/process question
from a tentative learning question. Preserve earlier evidence when a
later source is added. Mark missing details TO CONFIRM.
Include this separate original fictional handoff-form pilot.
Requirement: given an accessible approved form and supplied field
definitions, create an entry identifying item ID, current version,
and next owner. No actual employees or performance records are used.
A1 access-prerequisite case:
The approved form link displays Access denied. No form-field response.
Possible explanation: an access prerequisite is unresolved; form skill
has not been observed. Next check: process owner confirms access,
then task observation when accessible. Step outside training: resolve
access through the normal process. Learning objective: not established.
Review evidence: access condition and subsequent observed task response.
B1 unclear-wording case:
The form opens. Guidance says identify the owner. The demonstration
writer asks whether owner means current reviewer or next recipient.
No explicit definition or completed entry is supplied.
Possible explanations: ambiguous instruction; understanding of the
intended rule remains unobserved. Next check: process owner defines
the field, then offers a short practice case if needed. Step outside
training: clarify the instruction. Learning objective: not established.
Review evidence: explicit definition and observed response under it.
B2 is a separate later hypothetical evidence stage, not a rewrite of B1:
Definition: next owner means next person receiving the handoff.
Practice response: current reviewer was named.
Possible explanations need inquiry; do not choose a cause automatically.
Next check: ask how the writer chose that person and inspect focused
practice distinguishing current reviewer from next recipient.
Step outside training: confirm definition is present where work occurs.
Tentative objective: given a scenario identifying both people, select
the next recipient as next owner. Evidence/review: explanation and a
further practice response reviewed with the process owner. No final
ability, completed learning, or organization-wide course is established.
For each selected case, display all eight worksheet fields:
Required work; Supplied condition and source ID; Exact observation;
Possible explanations; Missing check; Proposed step outside training;
Tentative learning objective; Evidence and review needed.
Show A1, B1, and B2 as distinct source stages with labeled controls.
Do not leak B2's definition or practice response into B1.
Blanket request view: Book handoff-form training for everyone.
Evidence-based next steps view: A1 confirm access before observation;
B1 clarify definition before a practice response; B2 investigate the
selection and a focused practice question. Changing this comparison
never changes the source evidence. No diagnosis, access action, booking,
employee score, or approved training plan.
Add a separate blank worksheet with eight labeled temporary text areas
matching the eight fields. Preserve exact typing across case and request
view changes. Ask before clearing those entries. Cancel preserves them;
confirmed clear leaves the selected case and worked evidence unchanged.
Use readable evidence records with clear source IDs, native labeled
buttons, selected states, keyboard focus, and at least 16px text. Stack
at 360px with no horizontal page scrolling. Inline CSS/JavaScript only;
no network, storage, submission, personnel scoring, or fake export.
User typing remains text and lasts only in the open page. Return full HTML.
Check the generated cases against their sources. In particular, B1 must retain its ambiguous instruction and absent response. A neat later example should not erase the reason the earlier review needed clarification.
Agree on the requirement with the process owner
Bring the worksheet to the person responsible for the handoff process before turning it into a training schedule. Ask them to confirm what “next owner” means and which evidence would help settle the remaining learning question.
A sanitized reading copy in your NOS workspace can keep the requirement and the observations together for that discussion. Once the process owner clarifies what “owner” means, you can edit the requirement's wording directly on the page. Save it so the same review link carries the agreed definition, while retaining B1's original evidence wording as the historical record.
Update the maintained process instructions separately. Then collect the next observation under the clearer requirement and decide what support it actually calls for.