In “Techniques of Training Needs Analysis in Organizations,” Dr. Gokhan and Dr. Ahmet argue about organization need for training its manpower which should be initiated by the process of training need analysis. As a master student with a lot of experience in business, I must say I find Dr. Gokhan and Dr. Ahmet techniques of training needs persuasive, intellectual, and—perhaps most importantly—well worth heeding.
Repeated use of phrases likes “Training Needs”, “Vocational and Technical Education”, and “Learning Organizations” in the entire article accurately describe the techniques of training needs analysis in organizations. Their initial point, according to Greer, (2003) that in order to generate a sustainable competitive position, organizations spend on training to uphold long-term efficiency is scientifically sound. Additionally, their second, that state that the experts in the performance upgrading business recognize that training is preferred tools for civilizing performance by the management (Sleezer, 1993), comes authenticated by the weekly news about major corporations and their training techniques.
The four main reasons for carrying out needs analysis ahead of developing training programs that Dr. Gokhan and Dr. Ahmet provide are not enough. I would add that needs analysis makes a comprehensive incursion into the areas in which workers lag behind. Through this indulgent, it gives power to workers to obtain innovative skills at a quicker rate, therefore taking pleasure in their work. Moreover, with the course of time, the root of the issue lies in the reality that the employees’ proficiency gets worse and their proficiencies become outdated with the arrival of technology. So, training needs analysis is a great solution to this dissatisfaction in organizations.
Dr. Gokhan and Dr. Ahmet stress that, traditional training needs analysis is a less comprehensive process. However, I agree with the author as the process consists of only three steps. The three steps cannot exhaust all the things that require to be scrutinized before the training program commences. I would also support the use of competency-based needs analysis that consist of five steps, making it more comprehensive compared to the traditional training needs analysis. The authors support their proposal by stating the advantages of the five step process from the first two steps. However, I support the advantages since team work starts with an individual’s competence. Though, the other three remaining steps are similar to those of traditional training needs analysis Price et al, (2010), their choice of process is outstanding as it has something special from the other.
I applaud the authors for their excellent recognition of the more approaches in their articles. The authors show that the training needs analysis can have various uses if the approaches get broadened. If the author approaches get borrowed they might solve the confusion that arises from the approaches to get used. Reviewing the three fold approach of the McGehee & Thayer’s (1961) and incorporating other three approaches in the article make the authors’ work even more heeding. It is through these additional approaches that made the authors came up with a comprehensive conclusion on the uses of training needs analysis.
With a different approach, I would disagree with the concept of the authors adding additional approaches. However, this is because more approaches will make the process of training needs analysis to get complicated. As a result, organizations will be avoiding the process because of its long process. Therefore, I would suggest that the recognized approaches get incorporated to the existing approaches. For instance, competency-based needs analysis, strategic needs analysis, and demographic needs analysis can get incorporated and analyzed as organizational analysis.
The authors’ ignorance gets portrayed when they do not state categorically that knowledge and skills analysis should target individual employees and how they carry out their duties. The authors also failed to state that the most common method used in this approach is information from the employee’s performance review. Moreover, it is from the employee’s performance appraisal, we can disclose deficiencies that employees has so as to plan for his or her training.
The authors diligently differentiate the job and task analysis. They go ahead and state that job analysis does not recognize training needs, it makes known what is needed for a job rather than what a worker needs (McConnell, 2003:124). However, on this statement I would add that task analysis commences with job prerequisites and contrasts employee skills and knowledge to agree on training needs. The authors also fail to state what a good task analysis should identify. I would add to the authors that a good task analysis identifies task that have to get done, conditions under which to get done, when and how often it gets done, the quality and quantity of performance needed, skills and knowledge needed to do the tasks, and how and where these skills are most excellent obtained. This will help realize the gap amid job prerequisite and performance (Annett & Duncan, 1967).
In the organizational analysis, I approval the authors when they state that a research get needed to develop an enhanced understanding of inefficient must get located and, at what time are, how to establish if training is the most advantageous resolution to the performance crisis (Wexley, 1984:521). However, I would challenge the writers by adding that organizational analysis recognizes the capabilities, skills and knowledge that employees will require for the prospect, as the change happens in jobs and organizations. The authors fail to acknowledge that an organizational needs analysis might also compact with customer protests, quality control problems, and employee complaints among others.
The authors stress on the need to review the needs analysis literature so as to define the role of the training practitioner. The further states that training practitioners were characteristically presented with the proposals from the managers of high levels (O’Driscoll and Taylor, 1992). I concur with the authors on need to review. However, this is because the review will solve the inconsistency amid the theory and techniques actually utilized by organizations to make decisions on management training. Moreover, it will give the training practitioner described role that will solve the issue their dependence on the proposals given by the managers which might be biased.
The authors conclude that concludes that the training needs analysis should be the initial stage prior to any training in an organization. I support the conclusion made by the authors as it is clear that the underlying principle for developing a training program profoundly relies on recognizing training needs, and mitigating the costs and advantages to the organization (Judith, 2002).
The authors make the article even more heeding when they conclude by stating how the end result will impact training program. They also add to the importance of analyses on the level of individuals, duties and organization. I support their views since the aim of the whole process is to determine the needed needs that will get used in determining the training program. The individual, duties and organization analyses will also assist the execution of the training efforts in a precise manner (Rossett, 1987). Moreover, it is through analyses of the approach provided that gives the end result of the whole process of the training needs.
In conclusion, it is clear that without a clear knowledge of needs, efforts of training are at most excellent haphazardly helpful and at most horrible, ineffective. The trainer gets only triumphant and seen as such to the scope that needs are cautiously evaluated and program developed and performed that meet the needs. Moreover, it is clear from the article, that the authors convince that that end result of training is a more defined picture of training needs. I agree with the authors as the training need analysis lead to the training program purposed to improve performance and good outcomes from training.