Training needs analysis (TNA) is the process of identifying the gap between the capability people currently have and the capability the organisation needs, then deciding whether training is actually the right response.<\/p>\n
A strong analysis starts with performance and business needs. It does not begin with a course catalogue.<\/p>\n
The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 surveyed more than 1,000 employers representing over 14 million workers across 55 economies. In that survey, 63% of employers identified skills gaps as a major barrier to business transformation over the 2025\u20132030 period.<\/p>\n
Employers also expected 39% of workers’ core skills to change by 2030. If the global workforce were represented by 100 people, employers expected 59 to need training by 2030, while 85% of surveyed employers planned to prioritise workforce upskilling.<\/p>\n
Source: World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Report 2025<\/a><\/p>\n These are global employer-survey expectations, not a prediction that every organisation will face the same percentage of skill disruption.<\/p>\n CIPD distinguishes a one-off training needs analysis from a broader learning needs analysis (LNA). An LNA is an ongoing review of current and future organisational capability needs, while a TNA can be a more focused assessment linked to a specific training activity.<\/p>\n Source: CIPD, Learning needs analysis, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n In practice, organisations often use the terms interchangeably. The important point is to connect any proposed learning intervention to a clearly defined performance or capability gap.<\/p>\n Before asking \u201cWhat training do people need?\u201d, ask:<\/p>\n This matters because not every performance problem is a training problem.<\/p>\n Training is unlikely to solve a problem caused primarily by:<\/p>\n In these situations, training may still support implementation, but the root cause has to be addressed elsewhere.<\/p>\n Identify the capabilities the organisation needs to execute its strategy and respond to changes in its environment.<\/p>\n Useful inputs include:<\/p>\n Define what people in a role need to know and be able to do.<\/p>\n Useful inputs include:<\/p>\n Assess whether a specific employee has a gap against the requirements of the role.<\/p>\n Useful evidence can include:<\/p>\n No one method is sufficient by itself. Self-assessment can be useful for identifying confidence and perceived needs, but it should be combined with more objective evidence where possible.<\/p>\n A long list of skill gaps is not a strategy. Rank needs according to factors such as:<\/p>\n This helps prevent learning budgets from being spread across low-impact requests simply because they are popular.<\/p>\n CIPD’s learning-needs guidance explicitly warns against defaulting automatically to a course. Depending on the problem, the best response might be:<\/p>\n The learning solution should follow the diagnosis rather than drive it.<\/p>\n CIPD’s leadership-development evidence review reports that training programmes based on a careful needs analysis tend to be more effective than generic, untailored programmes. The review also notes that analysis can improve learner motivation and learning transfer when development goals are clear and specific.<\/p>\nTraining needs analysis and learning needs analysis are not exactly the same<\/h2>\n
Start with the performance problem<\/h2>\n
\n
When training is not the answer<\/h2>\n
\n
Three useful levels of analysis<\/h2>\n
1. Organisational level<\/h3>\n
\n
2. Team or role level<\/h3>\n
\n
3. Individual level<\/h3>\n
\n
Prioritise gaps by business impact<\/h2>\n
\n
Choose the intervention after the need is clear<\/h2>\n
\n
Training needs analysis improves programme design<\/h2>\n