There is no quality without people who have the knowledge, skills and motivation it requires. Developing human capacity is not a series of training courses; it is a system that starts with understanding needs and ends with measuring the impact on work and on the organization’s performance.
Competence from an ISO 9001 perspective
Quality standards define competence as the ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results. Clause 7.2 of ISO 9001 requires the organization to determine the competence needed by people whose work affects the performance of the quality management system, to ensure they are competent on the basis of appropriate education, training or experience, to take action where needed to acquire the required competence and evaluate its effectiveness, and to retain documented information as evidence. Notably, the standard does not limit these actions to training: it also mentions mentoring, reassigning tasks and bringing in competent people.
Training needs analysis
It is usually carried out at three levels:
- Organization: what competences do its strategy and upcoming changes require?
- Tasks: what knowledge and skills does each role require?
- Individual: what is the gap between what the person can do and what the role requires?
Information comes from several sources: strategic objectives, job descriptions, performance appraisals, audit results and user complaints, and the introduction of new equipment or systems. Before any training is approved, it is worth checking that the gap really stems from a lack of knowledge or skill: some performance problems come from unclear procedures, unsuitable tools or low motivation, which training does not fix. Needs are then prioritized according to their effect on service quality and on risks, since training resources are always limited.
Designing training: the ADDIE model
ADDIE is one of the most widely used instructional design models. It has five successive phases, with evaluation feeding back into each earlier phase, which turns design into an improvement cycle rather than a linear path:
- Analysis: define the need and the target group.
- Design: write measurable learning objectives and choose the methods.
- Development: produce content, activities and exercises drawn from real work situations.
- Implementation: deliver the training in good conditions.
- Evaluation: measure whether the objectives were achieved and feed the results back into earlier phases.
Learning doesn’t only happen in the classroom
The 70-20-10 model is widely cited as a rule of thumb rather than a scientific law: the largest share of learning comes from experience at work and tackling new tasks, a significant share comes from others through coaching, mentoring and feedback, and the smallest share from formal training. The core idea is that formal training needs a work environment that allows people to apply what they have learned, so training should be combined with on-the-job learning, mentoring and professional communities.
The line manager plays a decisive role here: the impact of training begins before the session, by agreeing expectations with the person, and continues after it, by giving them the chance to apply what they learned, following up and encouraging them.
Measuring impact: Kirkpatrick’s four levels
- Reaction: were participants satisfied, and did they find the training useful for their work? Usually measured with an end-of-session questionnaire.
- Learning: did they acquire new knowledge and skills? Measured with a pre- and post-test or a practical exercise.
- Behaviour: did their practices at work change? Measured through observation and line-manager follow-up some time after the training.
- Results: did this show in the organization’s performance? Measured with indicators such as errors, turnaround times and user complaints.
Evaluation is best designed from the outset, starting from the intended results, rather than added once the training is over.
Training after which nothing changes at work is a missed opportunity, however enjoyable it was.
Worked example: an administrative office in a university faculty
A university faculty notices repeated errors and delays in issuing certificates to students after a new information system is introduced. The needs analysis shows that some staff have not yet mastered the system, but also that part of the errors stems from an unclear procedure that has nothing to do with training. The procedure is clarified first; then a short hands-on workshop on the system is organized, each new staff member is paired with an experienced colleague, and a brief job aid is placed next to each workstation. Impact is evaluated at all four levels: a questionnaire at the end of the workshop, a practical exercise, observation of request handling a month later, then monitoring of error and turnaround indicators. Evidence of competence, such as attendance records and exercise results, is retained to meet the requirement of clause 7.2.
Common mistakes
- Measuring training success by the number of courses or training hours rather than by impact.
- Stopping at the first level of evaluation, participant satisfaction.
- Sending people on courses unrelated to an identified need.
- Overlooking the line manager’s role before and after training.
- Treating every performance problem with training, even when the cause lies in procedures or tools.
- Training people in new practices, then sending them back to a work environment that does not allow them to apply them.
