Purpose
Most training plans are a list of courses somebody liked, mapped backwards onto a
budget. This skill produces the opposite: a per-capability gap register built only
from evidence, with the non-training causes stripped out first, so the spend goes
where a course can actually change the outcome. It stops rather than filling
missing assessments with assumptions, because an invented development need reaches
a manager as a fact about a person.
Data classification
Confidential. Individual capability assessments are performance-adjacent
personal data. Team-level aggregates are Internal.
STOP CONDITIONS:
| Trigger |
Action |
| Named individuals' performance ratings, health data, disciplinary records, or HR case notes are pasted |
Stop. State what was detected by category, not by content. Ask for anonymised or pseudonymised capability data instead. |
| The analysis is being used to build a redundancy selection matrix or to justify dismissal |
Stop. This is a different process with different legal exposure. Route to HR/ER and qualified employment advisers. |
| Fewer than 5 individuals in the group and the output will be circulated |
Warn: aggregates do not anonymise small groups. Ask who the audience is before proceeding. |
NON-FABRICATION RULE. Never infer a person's development need from their job
title, their grade, their tenure, their team's average, or a previous TNA run.
Never carry a prior cycle's rating forward as current. If a person has no
assessment for a capability, the cell is NOT ASSESSED — it is never a midpoint,
never "assume proficient", never interpolated. A capability with more than 30% of
the group NOT ASSESSED cannot be aggregated; report the coverage gap as the
finding and stop.
Prerequisites
- Inputs: a capability or competency framework with defined proficiency levels;
the required level per capability per role; an assessment per person per
capability with its source and date.
- Inputs (strongly preferred): evidence of consequence — error/incident rates,
rework, escalations, audit findings, customer complaints, failed checks.
- Inputs (for prioritisation): upcoming changes (system migration, new
product, regulatory deadline) with dates; available budget and release time.
- Access: none required. This skill does not query HR systems.
If there is no framework and no required-level definition, there is no gap to
measure. Say so and stop — do not invent proficiency levels.
Procedure
1. Validate the input set before analysing
Reject and report, do not work around:
| Input problem |
Report as |
| Assessment older than one review cycle |
STALE — exclude, list separately |
| Self-assessment only, with no corroboration |
LOW CONFIDENCE — usable for direction, not for spend decisions |
| Required level not defined for the role |
UNDEFINED REQUIREMENT — no gap can be computed |
| Person present in one source, absent in another |
COVERAGE GAP — list the names' roles, not the assessments |
2. Compute the gap, per capability, per person
gap = required_level − assessed_level, computed only where both exist.
Record the assessment source alongside every value. Do not average across
capabilities to produce a single "score" for a person; it destroys the signal and
invites ranking people who were never assessed comparably.
3. Diagnose the cause — the step most TNAs skip
A gap is only a training need if the cause is capability. Test each material gap
against these causes in order, and stop at the first that fits:
| Cause |
Diagnostic question |
Correct intervention |
| They have never been shown |
Is this new to the role or newly introduced? |
Training — genuine need |
| They were shown but cannot do it under real conditions |
Can they do it in a demo but not live? |
Practice, supervised application, coaching |
| They can do it but do not |
Could they do it if their life depended on it? If yes, it is not a skill gap |
Fix the process, incentive, or workload |
| The tool or process makes it hard |
Do errors cluster at one step for everyone? |
Fix the system; training will not stick |
| Ambiguous standard |
Do two competent people disagree on what "good" is? |
Define the standard first, then train |
| Capacity |
Do they know how and lack time? |
Resourcing decision, not learning |
Training assigned to a process problem produces a completed course and an
unchanged error rate. Say this explicitly in the output when it applies.
4. Aggregate to team level with an explicit threshold
State the thresholds used; do not leave them implicit.
| Condition |
Intervention shape |
| Gap ≥1 level in ≥40% of assessed group |
Group intervention — cohort programme |
| Gap ≥1 level in 2 or more people, below 40% |
Small-group or peer-led session |
| Gap in 1 person only |
Individual plan; do not build a course |
| Gap ≥2 levels in a role-critical capability, any count |
Escalate — this is a control risk, not a learning item |
| Regulatory or licensing competence unmet |
Escalate immediately; deadline-driven, not budget-driven |
5. Sequence and cost
Order by: regulatory deadline → control risk → business change date → efficiency.
For each item state the delivery mode, and be honest that most capability is built
on the job: on-the-job application, coaching/peer, formal course. Give each item
an owner, a date, and a measure of effect — the error rate, cycle time, or check
pass rate that should move. An item with no measure of effect cannot be evaluated
later; flag it rather than shipping it.
6. Output
Produce: coverage statement (who was and was not assessed) · gap register with
sources · cause diagnosis per material gap · team interventions with thresholds
shown · items explicitly rejected as non-training problems · unresolved questions.
The rejected-items list is a required section. Removing it makes the plan look
tidier and the analysis weaker.
Boundaries
- Not for individual performance management, ratings, or PIPs — that is
hr-performance-review-coaching, and formal capability procedures belong with
HR/ER, not here.
- Not for defining what a role requires in the first place — that is
hr-job-description-authoring.
- Not for vendor selection or course procurement; this skill defines the need,
it does not evaluate suppliers.
- Do not use this output as redundancy selection criteria.
Hand-offs
- Receives from:
hr-job-description-authoring when a role profile assumes a
capability the team does not demonstrably hold.
- Receives from:
legal-compliance-regulatory-change-impact when a new obligation
creates a competence requirement with a compliance date.
- Routes to:
hr-performance-review-coaching for the individual-plan items.
- Routes to:
finance-budget-vs-actual-commentary when the learning budget needs
a variance explanation.
1---2name: hr-training-needs-analysis3description: Consolidates a team-level training needs analysis from evidenced capability gaps, separating genuine skill gaps from process, tooling and motivation problems that training cannot fix, and refusing to infer any individual's development need from job title, tenure or team average. Use when planning a learning budget, responding to an audit or regulator finding about competence, building a team capability plan, deciding whether to buy training, or consolidating individual development plans into one view. Trigger on 'training needs analysis', 'TNA', 'skills gap', 'capability assessment', 'learning plan', 'what training does the team need', 'development plan for the team'. Not for writing or grading a role profile (use hr-job-description-authoring) or for coaching a single person's objectives and review (use hr-performance-review-coaching).4---56## Purpose78Most training plans are a list of courses somebody liked, mapped backwards onto a9budget. This skill produces the opposite: a per-capability gap register built only10from evidence, with the non-training causes stripped out first, so the spend goes11where a course can actually change the outcome. It stops rather than filling12missing assessments with assumptions, because an invented development need reaches13a manager as a fact about a person.1415## Data classification1617**Confidential.** Individual capability assessments are performance-adjacent18personal data. Team-level aggregates are Internal.1920**STOP CONDITIONS:**2122| Trigger | Action |23| --- | --- |24| Named individuals' performance ratings, health data, disciplinary records, or HR case notes are pasted | Stop. State what was detected by category, not by content. Ask for anonymised or pseudonymised capability data instead. |25| The analysis is being used to build a redundancy selection matrix or to justify dismissal | Stop. This is a different process with different legal exposure. Route to HR/ER and qualified employment advisers. |26| Fewer than 5 individuals in the group and the output will be circulated | Warn: aggregates do not anonymise small groups. Ask who the audience is before proceeding. |2728**NON-FABRICATION RULE.** Never infer a person's development need from their job29title, their grade, their tenure, their team's average, or a previous TNA run.30Never carry a prior cycle's rating forward as current. If a person has no31assessment for a capability, the cell is `NOT ASSESSED` — it is never a midpoint,32never "assume proficient", never interpolated. A capability with more than 30% of33the group NOT ASSESSED cannot be aggregated; report the coverage gap as the34finding and stop.3536## Prerequisites3738- **Inputs:** a capability or competency framework with defined proficiency levels;39 the required level per capability per role; an assessment per person per40 capability with its source and date.41- **Inputs (strongly preferred):** evidence of consequence — error/incident rates,42 rework, escalations, audit findings, customer complaints, failed checks.43- **Inputs (for prioritisation):** upcoming changes (system migration, new44 product, regulatory deadline) with dates; available budget and release time.45- **Access:** none required. This skill does not query HR systems.4647If there is no framework and no required-level definition, there is no gap to48measure. Say so and stop — do not invent proficiency levels.4950## Procedure5152### 1. Validate the input set before analysing5354Reject and report, do not work around:5556| Input problem | Report as |57| --- | --- |58| Assessment older than one review cycle | STALE — exclude, list separately |59| Self-assessment only, with no corroboration | LOW CONFIDENCE — usable for direction, not for spend decisions |60| Required level not defined for the role | UNDEFINED REQUIREMENT — no gap can be computed |61| Person present in one source, absent in another | COVERAGE GAP — list the names' roles, not the assessments |6263### 2. Compute the gap, per capability, per person6465`gap = required_level − assessed_level`, computed only where both exist.66Record the assessment source alongside every value. Do not average across67capabilities to produce a single "score" for a person; it destroys the signal and68invites ranking people who were never assessed comparably.6970### 3. Diagnose the cause — the step most TNAs skip7172A gap is only a training need if the cause is capability. Test each material gap73against these causes in order, and stop at the first that fits:7475| Cause | Diagnostic question | Correct intervention |76| --- | --- | --- |77| They have never been shown | Is this new to the role or newly introduced? | Training — genuine need |78| They were shown but cannot do it under real conditions | Can they do it in a demo but not live? | Practice, supervised application, coaching |79| They can do it but do not | Could they do it if their life depended on it? If yes, it is not a skill gap | Fix the process, incentive, or workload |80| The tool or process makes it hard | Do errors cluster at one step for everyone? | Fix the system; training will not stick |81| Ambiguous standard | Do two competent people disagree on what "good" is? | Define the standard first, then train |82| Capacity | Do they know how and lack time? | Resourcing decision, not learning |8384Training assigned to a process problem produces a completed course and an85unchanged error rate. Say this explicitly in the output when it applies.8687### 4. Aggregate to team level with an explicit threshold8889State the thresholds used; do not leave them implicit.9091| Condition | Intervention shape |92| --- | --- |93| Gap ≥1 level in ≥40% of assessed group | Group intervention — cohort programme |94| Gap ≥1 level in 2 or more people, below 40% | Small-group or peer-led session |95| Gap in 1 person only | Individual plan; do not build a course |96| Gap ≥2 levels in a role-critical capability, any count | Escalate — this is a control risk, not a learning item |97| Regulatory or licensing competence unmet | Escalate immediately; deadline-driven, not budget-driven |9899### 5. Sequence and cost100101Order by: regulatory deadline → control risk → business change date → efficiency.102For each item state the delivery mode, and be honest that most capability is built103on the job: on-the-job application, coaching/peer, formal course. Give each item104an owner, a date, and a *measure of effect* — the error rate, cycle time, or check105pass rate that should move. An item with no measure of effect cannot be evaluated106later; flag it rather than shipping it.107108### 6. Output109110Produce: coverage statement (who was and was not assessed) · gap register with111sources · cause diagnosis per material gap · team interventions with thresholds112shown · items explicitly rejected as non-training problems · unresolved questions.113114The rejected-items list is a required section. Removing it makes the plan look115tidier and the analysis weaker.116117## Boundaries118119- **Not for** individual performance management, ratings, or PIPs — that is120 `hr-performance-review-coaching`, and formal capability procedures belong with121 HR/ER, not here.122- **Not for** defining what a role requires in the first place — that is123 `hr-job-description-authoring`.124- **Not for** vendor selection or course procurement; this skill defines the need,125 it does not evaluate suppliers.126- **Do not use** this output as redundancy selection criteria.127128## Hand-offs129130- Receives from: `hr-job-description-authoring` when a role profile assumes a131 capability the team does not demonstrably hold.132- Receives from: `legal-compliance-regulatory-change-impact` when a new obligation133 creates a competence requirement with a compliance date.134- Routes to: `hr-performance-review-coaching` for the individual-plan items.135- Routes to: `finance-budget-vs-actual-commentary` when the learning budget needs136 a variance explanation.
alihusains