codexkit-training-needs-analyzer

name	codexkit-training-needs-analyzer
description	Assess organizational training needs using ADDIE methodology and Kirkpatrick's 4-Level evaluation framework. Maps performance gaps to learning objectives using Bloom's taxonomy. Use when planning L&D budgets, designing training programs, or evaluating training effectiveness.
version	1.0.0
category	scaffolding

Training Needs Analyzer

When to Use

• When identifying skill gaps across teams or departments
• When building an annual training plan or L&D roadmap
• When leadership asks "what training do we need and why?"
• When evaluating ROI of existing training programs

Procedure

Step 1 — Performance Gap Analysis

Identify the gap between current and desired performance:

Role / Team	Current Performance	Desired Performance	Gap	Business Impact
Sales reps	25% close rate	35% close rate	10 pts	$2M revenue
Support	4h avg response	1h avg response	3h	CSAT: 72→85

Source gap data from:

• Performance reviews
• Skill assessments
• Manager interviews
• Customer feedback / escalation data
• Industry benchmarks

Step 2 — Root Cause Check

Not every gap is a training problem. Check:

Root Cause	Training Solution?	Alternative
Lack of knowledge	✅ Yes	—
Lack of skill/practice	✅ Yes	—
Lack of motivation	❌ No	Management, incentives
Process/tool issues	❌ No	Process redesign, tooling
Unclear expectations	❌ No	Role clarity, OKRs

Only proceed with training for genuine knowledge/skill gaps.

Step 3 — Learning Objectives (Bloom's Taxonomy)

Write measurable objectives at the right cognitive level:

Level	Verb	Example Objective
Remember	List, identify	List the 5 steps of the sales process
Understand	Explain, describe	Explain why discovery questions improve win rate
Apply	Use, demonstrate	Apply the SPIN framework in a mock call
Analyze	Compare, diagnose	Diagnose why a deal stalled and recommend next step
Evaluate	Assess, critique	Assess a proposal for alignment with client needs
Create	Design, build	Design a custom proposal for a complex enterprise deal

Step 4 — Delivery Recommendation

Format	Best For	Cost	Engagement
Self-paced e-learning	Knowledge transfer, compliance	Low	Medium
Live workshop	Skill practice, collaboration	Medium	High
Coaching / mentoring	Behavior change, leadership	High	Very High
On-the-job training	Applied skills, processes	Low	High
Blended	Complex programs	Medium	High

Step 5 — Evaluation Plan (Kirkpatrick 4 Levels)

Level	Question	Measurement	Timing
1. Reaction	Did they like it?	Post-session survey (≥4/5)	Immediately
2. Learning	Did they learn?	Pre/post assessment (≥80% pass)	End of training
3. Behavior	Do they apply it?	Manager observation, KPI tracking	30–90 days
4. Results	Did business improve?	Revenue, CSAT, retention metrics	6–12 months

Step 6 — Budget Estimate

Item	Cost	Notes
Content development	$X	Internal or vendor
Facilitator time	$X	Hours × rate
Platform/tools	$X	LMS, licenses
Participant time	$X	Hours × avg salary (opportunity cost)
Total	$X
Cost per learner	$X

Inputs

Input	Required	Format
Performance data	Yes	Current vs desired metrics
Target audience	Yes	Roles, team sizes
Business objectives	Yes	What outcomes training should achieve
Budget constraints	Recommended	Available L&D budget

Output

## Training Needs Assessment — [Organization / Department]

### Priority Gaps

| # | Gap | Audience | Impact | Root Cause | Training? |
|---|-----|----------|--------|-----------|-----------|
| 1 | Low close rate | Sales (25 ppl) | $2M revenue | Skill gap | ✅ Yes |
| 2 | Slow response | Support (15 ppl) | CSAT drop | Process + skill | ⚠️ Partial |

### Recommended Programs

| Program | Format | Duration | Audience | Learning Objectives |
|---------|--------|----------|----------|-------------------|
| Sales Excellence | Workshop + coaching | 3 days + 4 wks | Sales reps | Apply SPIN, create proposals |

### Evaluation Framework
[Kirkpatrick 4-level plan per program]

### Budget Summary
[Cost breakdown with per-learner cost]

Definition of Done

• Performance gaps identified with data
• Root causes checked (training vs non-training)
• Learning objectives use Bloom's taxonomy verbs
• Delivery format recommended with justification
• Kirkpatrick evaluation plan included
• Budget estimated with per-learner cost

Quality Criteria

• All placeholder sections are filled with domain-specific content
• Structure follows the relevant industry standard or framework
• Language matches target audience (technical / executive / legal)
• Output is ready for review — not a rough draft requiring major rework

Verification (4C)

Check	Question
Correctness	Does the draft structure follow the stated framework or industry standard?
Completeness	Are all required sections present with substantive (not placeholder) content?
Context-fit	Does tone, detail level, and terminology match the intended audience?
Consequence	If sent to the intended recipient without further editing, what would fail?

Edge Cases

• No existing template for this type — Use the closest available template and document all customizations made.
• Stakeholder requirements conflict — Flag conflicts explicitly in the draft. Do not silently choose one requirement over another.
• Output required in multiple formats — Produce the canonical format first, then derive others. Note any formatting limitations.

Changelog

• v1.0.0 — Initial release