A Proportionate Approach to Training Needs Analysis (TNA): Aligning Methodology with Risk and Complexity

In the world of high-consequence operations where safety, performance, and compliance are paramount Training Needs Analysis (TNA) must be more than a checkbox exercise. A proportionate approach is critical, ensuring training development efforts are aligned with the risk, complexity, and operational significance of the tasks involved.

This blog outlines the key factors to consider when determining the scope and rigor of a TNA and highlights alternative methodologies for ensuring training solutions are effective, efficient, and justifiable.

Scoping TNA Proportionately: Factors That Matter

Before selecting an analysis methodology, it’s essential to perform an initial scoping exercise. The following factors help determine how comprehensive or streamlined the TNA should be:

🔸 Hazard Grading

Grading the task or job function based on its hazard level High, Medium, or Low helps to assess the potential consequences of training deficiencies.

🔸 Safety Relevance

How does training performance impact safety? Consider risks to:

• The public

• The environment

• Facility and equipment

• Operational personnel

🔸 Operational Status

Account for variables such as:

• Ageing equipment and systems

• Ongoing transitions or upgrades

• Current plant or facility conditions

🔸 Complexity and Characteristics

Evaluate from a human factors, engineering, and safety standpoint. Complexity can drive the need for more in-depth analysis and robust training solutions.

🔸 Magnitude of Hazards

Assess the scale and severity of potential harm from failures or errors in task performance.

🔸 Management Considerations

Availability of resources, training timelines, and how many personnel are affected all influence the selection of an appropriate methodology.

Selecting the Right Analysis Approach

Once scoping is complete, the next step is to select a proportionate analysis method. Depending on the identified risk and training need, you can for either use the Systematic Approach to Training (SAT) or a fit-for-purpose alternative.

✅ Traditional JTA/JCA

A comprehensive method involving research, interviews, and surveys. Best suited for:

• Complex, critical job roles

• Limited availability of reliable job/task data

• Situations requiring high assurance

✅ Verification Analysis

Uses existing task lists from similar jobs or systems and verifies them against current needs. Faster, but dependent on the quality of available data.

✅ Document Analysis

Involves systematically reviewing procedures and other documentation to extract tasks. Supplemented by SME validation to confirm training needs.

✅ Table-Top Analysis

Uses a structured focus group approach to quickly identify required training tasks. Particularly effective for moderate to low-risk roles where agility is a priority.

Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Task Analysis

A frequent inefficiency in traditional JTA is the premature development of SKA (Skills, Knowledge, and Attitudes) elements before determining whether a task is actually trainable. Always pause after task identification and apply a Difficulty, Importance, Frequency (DIF) filter before continuing.

Flexibility in Alternative Approaches

Non-traditional methods don't always follow SAT phase-for-phase, but they must still meet minimum product and documentation standards. Here's a streamlined view:

🔹 Analysis Phase

• Products: Verified task list with DIF results (Train/No-Train/Refresher)

• Documentation: Method used and participant details (sufficient for low-hazard scenarios)

🔹 Design Phase

• Training summary or plan

• Learning objectives

• Evaluation criteria

• Task-to-training matrix

🔹 Development Phase

• Training materials

• SME and line management sign-offs

🔹 Implementation Phase

• Trained personnel

• Attendance records and evaluations

• Instructor qualifications

🔹 Evaluation Phase

• Updated training based on feedback

• Records of changes and rationale

Determining Learning Media: Aligning with Training Outcomes

Selecting appropriate learning media depends on the domain of the training outcome:

🎯 Domains of Learning

• Cognitive: Knowledge, comprehension, analysis

• Psychomotor: Physical skills and motor performance

• Affective: Attitudes, behaviours, values

Example:

If the outcome is primarily psychomotor, prioritise On-the-Job Training (OJT). If it leans toward cognitive, further breakdown is needed:

• Basic Knowledge: Use self-study, CBT, briefings

• Comprehension: Opt for instructor-led or blended approaches

Training Delivery Options

Here are a few delivery method examples aligned to learning outcomes and operational needs:

Method	Best For
Instructor-Led Training	Interactive sessions, group engagement
On-the-Job Training	Real-time skill development, coaching, and drills
Self-Study	Individual pacing with minimal supervision
Workshop/Lab Training	Simulated environments and problem-solving
CBT & E-Learning	Flexible, scalable, multimedia content
Blended Learning	Mixed approaches for holistic development (70:20:10)

Final Thoughts

There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to TNA. Proportionality is key. Aligning the method to the risk, complexity, and business impact of the task ensures that your training is efficient, evidence-based, and fit for purpose.

The goal is not to over engineer simple needs or under-analyse critical operations. With a considered, structured, and proportionate approach, TNA can genuinely drive safer and more competent performance across the workforce.

Author: Dan Bland

Position: Lead Consultant

Industry: High-Hazard Operations / Learning & Development / Safety-Critical Industries