Never mind the gap: solution-focused training needs analysis

I just received a query about how to use SF thinking in producing a training needs analysis:

Mark, I need to outline how we would go about developing a ‘needs analysis’ for a big coaching project we are bidding for with a major potential client.  My experience with these is that they are essentially gap analysis tools which runs right against the SF approach.  Are you aware of anything that might have been written up that provides an SF approach to this?  I would really like to be able put up an alternative approach that achieves better outcomes than the traditional gap based needs analysis.

I am quite a fan of the ‘reverse Kirkpatrick’ method of needs analysis.  This takes Donald Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaulation (with which many of you may be familiar):
 
reaction of student – what they thought and felt about the training
learning – the resulting increase in knowledge or capability
behaviour – extent of behaviour and capability improvement and implementation/application
results – the effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee’s performance
 
and reverses them. So, we get a process like:
 
1.  Results - the desired effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee’s performance (and, in SF fashion, the benefits of this for all stakeholders including the learning participants)
2.  Behaviour - therefore, the desired behaviour and capability improvement and implementation/application is… (and, in SF fashion, what do we know from previous experience of doing this in this organisation that will help.  What’s the best you ever did at this?… How did you do that?…)
3.  Learning - therefore, the desired increase in knowledge or capability to be taught is… (And in SF fashion, including what of this do they do already, how to affirm that, how to build on it, etc)
4,  Reaction of students – (and lastly how we wish the learners to respond on the day, which will usually be engaged, stimulated, affirmed, supported and clear about their next steps).

Do try this and let me know how you get on.  I’ve found it very helpful in the past.  And what’s more, it makes the evaluation process very straightforward, as you’ve already thought about all the criteria for the evaluation.

rutenso – the great power of tiny signs

As I discussed in the previous posting in this series (http://sfworkblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/rutenso-the-art-of-thriving-in-times-of-constant-change/), rutenso is a philosophy for thriving in times of constant change.  It’s the power the makes the Solution-Focused (SF) approach so interesting and different.  One interesting aspect of working in environments where change is happening all the time is the big power of tiny signs.

What is a ‘sign’?  In the dictionary, sign (noun) is given as:

“An object, quality, or event whose presence or occurrence indicates the probable presence or occurrence of something else.” 

In SF work, a sign is an indicator that useful change has happened… either in the past, the present or the future.  Note that this is not at all the same as ‘what will bring change about’.  That’s an action.  A sign is something that tells us that things are moving in the right direction.  It might turn out to be actionable or it may not.  So, what’s the advantage of talking about tiny signs?

Suppose we want to describe a better future – something we want to have happen.  It’s interesting what happens when we do this in terms of ‘first tiny signs’. 

• The description becomes very concrete.  We start thinking about small observable and detailed elements. 
• The description becomes very generative.  These are first tiny signs – but the precursors of all kinds of bigger things to come. 
• A rich description can be generated by thinking about many tiny signs – each possibly insignificant on its own, but in unison amounting to an exciting new possibility. 
• The description can become action-oriented – the tiny signs themselves lead to ideas for actions. 
• And finally, the tiny signs can be used in the future as reference points to spot change starting to happen.  Once you know what you’re looking for, it’s much easier to spot it. 

I notice this sometimes when I work with people from other traditions.  It seems like they are happy to discuss better futures at a general abstract level, but when get a little nervous when I suggest we ask about ‘first tiny signs’.  Maybe talking in these terms raises the stakes a bit – the future starts to seem nearer, and we may actually have to deal with it starting to arrive!  But surely that’s a good thing?