Free template
Training needs analysis template: a TNA guide with a scoring sheet
A training needs analysis template with a scoring sheet that maps competency gaps to training actions, the three levels of analysis — organisational, task and individual — a worked example and a seven-step method that starts from performance review data.
By the CLEAR Talent team
A training needs analysis, or TNA, works out which training an organisation actually needs before anyone books a course. It compares what the business, each role and each person need to be able to do with what they can do today, decides which of those gaps training can close, and puts the rest — the gaps caused by a broken process, a missing tool or an unclear role — somewhere else.
Most TNAs fail in one of two ways. Some are a survey asking people which courses they would like, which measures appetite rather than need. Others are thorough but never connected to the evidence the organisation already holds: the competency ratings, development goals and feedback that come out of every performance review. This guide fixes both. It explains the three levels of analysis, shows how review data feeds them, and gives you one scoring sheet in which every gap, at every level, ends in a decision: a training action, a non-training fix or a deliberate choice to leave it for now.
The framework
The three levels of training needs analysis
A complete TNA looks at need from three directions. Organisational analysis asks what the business is trying to do and which capabilities that depends on. Task analysis asks what each role requires to do its work well, now and after any change that is coming. Individual analysis asks where each person stands against their role. The levels answer different questions and lead to different actions, so run all three and record them on the same sheet.
The order matters. Starting with individuals produces a long list of personal gaps with no sense of which ones the business needs closed. Starting with the organisation tells you which roles and capabilities to look at closely, and which you can leave alone this year.
| Level | The question it answers | Evidence to use | What it produces |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organisational | Which capabilities do this year’s business priorities depend on, and where across the organisation are they thin? | The business plan, planned changes such as a new site, system or regulation, succession plans, and competency ratings rolled up by department. | A short list of priority capabilities and the groups that need them — usually two to four organisation-wide training priorities and the budget behind them. |
| Task (role) | What does each role need to do its work well, at what level, now and after the change that is coming? | Role profiles and competency frameworks, job descriptions, process documentation, error and quality reports, and the people who do the work well today. | Required levels per competency for each role, and the gaps a whole team shares — the case for a group programme or a process fix. |
| Individual | Where does each person stand against what their role requires, and what will close their particular gaps? | Competency ratings from performance reviews, self-assessments, 360° feedback, goal and KPI results, and the person’s career aspiration. | Training and development actions in each person’s individual development plan, with an owner, a date and a measure. |
The three levels feed one another: organisational priorities decide which roles get a task analysis, and the task analysis sets the required levels individuals are assessed against.
Inputs
How performance review data feeds a training needs analysis
If you run performance reviews, you already hold most of the evidence a TNA needs. The trouble is that it is usually locked in individual review forms and read once, by one manager. A TNA reads the same records across a whole team or organisation, looking for patterns.
Use the parts of the review that describe capability, not the overall rating. An overall “meets expectations” tells you nothing about which skill is missing, and it is often influenced by pay and promotion decisions. Competency ratings against defined levels, and the comments that justify them, are what can be added up across people and compared with a required level.
What to take from each review cycle
Competency ratings against required levels
The core input. Average them by role and team, and count how many people sit below the required level, because an acceptable average can hide a handful of large individual gaps.
Development goals already agreed
Goals in existing development plans are training needs someone has already identified. Group them by competency before adding anything new, or the TNA will propose a programme half the team has already started.
360° and upward feedback
Feedback from peers and direct reports catches gaps a manager cannot see, especially in leadership and collaboration. Treat it as a second source alongside the manager’s rating rather than a replacement for it.
Goal and KPI results
Missed goals point to where capability may be limiting results. Check the cause before calling it a training need: a target missed because a system was down is not a skills gap.
Calibration notes
If ratings were calibrated across managers, they are more comparable between teams. If they were not, read a cluster of low ratings under one manager with care before building a programme for that team.
Timing helps. Run the TNA straight after the review cycle closes, while the ratings are current, and set the re-assessment date to the next cycle so the same competencies are measured on the same scale and you can see whether the training closed the gap.
The scoring sheet
From gap score to training action
The template scores each gap the same way as a skills gap analysis: required level minus current level gives the gap, and the gap multiplied by its business impact — 1 useful, 2 important, 3 critical — gives a priority score. Sorting by that score shows where to act first. The score alone does not say what to do, though. The shape of the gap does: how many people share it, and what is causing it.
| What the sheet shows | What it usually means | Typical action |
|---|---|---|
| High score, shared by most of a group | A role-wide or organisation-wide need, often created by a change in the business or a cohort promoted together. | One group programme, with practice built in between sessions, rather than a separate course in every development plan. |
| High score in a skill the role has never needed before | A new requirement — a new system, site, product or regulation — where nobody can yet be at the required level. | Formal training timed before the change, with a few people trained to a higher level first so they can support the rest. |
| Moderate score, held by a few people | Individual gaps inside a role that is otherwise covered. | A goal in each person’s individual development plan: coaching, shadowing, a stretch assignment or a course. |
| High score with a cause outside the person | The gap is in the process, the tools, the workload or the clarity of the role. Training will not move it. | A non-training fix with its own owner. Re-assess after the fix; train only the people whose gap remains. |
| Score below 1 | A small gap or a skill the role rarely uses. | Accept it for now and record that decision, so it is reviewed next cycle rather than forgotten. |
Bands are a starting point. A small gap in a safety-critical or regulated skill can justify action regardless of its score.
The training needs analysis template
Template
Training needs analysis
Fill in the analysis details once, then one row per gap at each level — organisational, task and individual — on the same sheet. Keep required and current levels on one scale, and fill the “Is training the answer?” column before writing any training action.
| Field | What to write |
|---|---|
| Analysis details | |
| Scope of the analysis | The organisation, department, role or person the analysis covers, and how many people are in it. |
| Business priorities | The two or three priorities for the period that the training must support: a new site, system, product, regulation or target. |
| Proficiency scale | The scale for required and current levels, with what each point means. A common one: 1 awareness, 2 developing, 3 proficient, 4 advanced, 5 expert. |
| Evidence sources | Where the current levels come from: competency ratings from the last review, self-assessment, 360° feedback, goal and KPI results, practical tests, error or quality reports. |
| Training budget and period | The budget available, who approves spend against it, and the period the plan covers. |
| Owner | Who runs the analysis and signs off the priorities — usually HR or L&D with the business owner. |
| Date of analysis | When the current levels were assessed. Straight after a review cycle is best. |
| Re-assessment date | When the same competencies will be assessed again on the same scale, to see whether the training closed the gap. |
| For each gap (up to 10) | |
| Level and scope | Organisational, task or individual, and who the row covers: all managers, a role and its headcount, or one named person. |
| Competency or skill | Named the way your competency framework or role profile names it. |
| Required level | The level the role or priority needs, on your scale — set from the work, not from the people doing it today. |
| Current level | The assessed level. For a group, give the average and how many people sit below the required level. |
| Gap | Required level minus current level. Record zero where the current level meets or exceeds it. |
| Business impact | 1 useful, 2 important, 3 critical: how much the priority or the work suffers while the gap stays open. |
| Priority score | Gap × business impact. Sort by this column within each level. |
| Is training the answer? | Yes, no or partly, and the cause: a skill or knowledge gap training can close, or a process, tool, workload or role problem it cannot. |
| Training action, owner and date | What will close the gap — a group programme, formal course, coaching, shadowing, a stretch assignment or a non-training fix — with an owner and a date. Or a recorded decision to accept the gap for now. |
| Success measure | The evidence that the gap has closed: the level reached at re-assessment, a change in a KPI or error rate, feedback from others. |
As a spreadsheet
One row per gap. Copy the grid below and paste it into the first cell of a spreadsheet, or download the CSV.
| # | Level and scope | Competency or skill | Required level | Current level | Gap | Business impact | Priority score | Is training the answer? | Training action, owner and date | Success measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||
| 5 | ||||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||||
| 10 |
Show the plain-text template
TRAINING NEEDS ANALYSIS Scope of the analysis: Business priorities: Proficiency scale: Evidence sources: Training budget and period: Owner: Date of analysis: Re-assessment date: GAP 1 Level and scope: Competency or skill: Required level: Current level: Gap: Business impact: Priority score: Is training the answer?: Training action, owner and date: Success measure: GAP 2 Level and scope: Competency or skill: Required level: Current level: Gap: Business impact: Priority score: Is training the answer?: Training action, owner and date: Success measure: GAP 3 Level and scope: Competency or skill: Required level: Current level: Gap: Business impact: Priority score: Is training the answer?: Training action, owner and date: Success measure: GAP 4 Level and scope: Competency or skill: Required level: Current level: Gap: Business impact: Priority score: Is training the answer?: Training action, owner and date: Success measure: GAP 5 Level and scope: Competency or skill: Required level: Current level: Gap: Business impact: Priority score: Is training the answer?: Training action, owner and date: Success measure: GAP 6 Level and scope: Competency or skill: Required level: Current level: Gap: Business impact: Priority score: Is training the answer?: Training action, owner and date: Success measure: GAP 7 Level and scope: Competency or skill: Required level: Current level: Gap: Business impact: Priority score: Is training the answer?: Training action, owner and date: Success measure: GAP 8 Level and scope: Competency or skill: Required level: Current level: Gap: Business impact: Priority score: Is training the answer?: Training action, owner and date: Success measure: GAP 9 Level and scope: Competency or skill: Required level: Current level: Gap: Business impact: Priority score: Is training the answer?: Training action, owner and date: Success measure: GAP 10 Level and scope: Competency or skill: Required level: Current level: Gap: Business impact: Priority score: Is training the answer?: Training action, owner and date: Success measure:
Nothing here is gated: the spreadsheet and the text file hold exactly the fields shown above, with ten blank gap rows. Add rows as you need them.
How to do a training needs analysis in seven steps
The steps move from the organisation down to the individual and then back up to evaluation. Run them once a year after the performance review cycle, and again whenever a major change creates a new requirement.
Start from the business priorities
Write down the two or three things the organisation must achieve in the period — a new site, a new system, a regulatory change, a quality or customer target — and ask which capabilities each one depends on. This is the organisational analysis, and it decides which roles and capabilities deserve a closer look and which can wait.
Set what each role requires
For the roles the priorities point at, list the five to ten competencies that matter most and set a required level for each on one proficiency scale. Take them from your competency framework or role profiles where they exist, and set the level for the role as it will be after any coming change, not as it was last year. This is the task analysis.
Assess current levels from the evidence you hold
Take competency ratings from the latest performance review, backed by a second source such as a self-assessment, 360° feedback or a practical test for new skills. For a group, record the average and how many people sit below the required level. This is the individual analysis, and most of it already exists in your review records.
Score and rank the gaps
For every row, subtract the current level from the required level and multiply the gap by its business impact to get a priority score. Sort within each level. A small gap in a critical capability will often outrank a large one in a skill the role rarely uses.
Decide whether training is the answer
Before writing any training action, ask what is causing each gap. Error reports, process documentation and a conversation with the people doing the work will show whether it is a skill or knowledge gap, or a broken process, a missing tool, an impossible workload or an unclear role. Record the non-training causes and give each its own owner.
Choose the training action, owner and measure
Turn each genuine training need into an action. Gaps most of a group share suit one programme; gaps held by a few people belong in their individual development plans; new requirements need training timed before the change. Give every action an owner, a date, a cost where there is one, and a success measure, then total the costs against the budget and cut from the bottom of the priority list.
Re-assess and evaluate
At the re-assessment date, rate the same competencies on the same scale and compare the result with the success measures. Close the rows where the gap has gone, carry forward the ones where it has not, and ask why. That evaluation is the evidence for next year’s training budget.
Training needs analysis example: one company, three levels
A worked example from a 300-person distribution company preparing to open a second distribution centre and replace its warehouse management system, while cutting the number of orders shipped with errors. It runs the TNA after its annual review cycle, at all three levels, on the 1–5 scale above.
The company, roles, people and figures in this example were written for this page to show how a training needs analysis works. They do not describe a real organisation, a real employee or any CLEAR Talent customer.
Organisational
Level 1: organisational analysis
The board has set two priorities for the year: open the second site, which needs twelve shift leads promoted from within, and reduce order errors. HR starts by asking which capabilities those priorities depend on across the whole organisation, before looking at any one team. The largest score is a requirement the second site creates rather than a weakness in anyone’s current job.
- Scope of the analysis
- Whole organisation: 300 staff, including 34 people managers
- Business priorities
- Second site open in nine months; fewer orders shipped with errors
- Evidence sources
- Competency ratings from the annual review, 360° feedback for people managers, the succession list
| Level and scope | Competency or skill | Required level | Current level | Gap | Business impact | Priority score | Is training the answer? | Training action, owner and date | Success measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisational — the 18 operatives on the succession list | Leading a shift | 3 | 1.8 (16 of 18 below 3) | 1.2 | 3 | 3.6 | Yes — a new requirement created by the second site; most candidates have never led a team. | An acting shift-lead rotation for each candidate, backed by a first-line leadership course; owner: operations director with HR; complete before promotions are confirmed. | Twelve candidates rated 3 or above in leading a shift before the site opens. |
| Organisational — all 34 people managers | Coaching and giving feedback | 3 | 2.3 (22 of 34 below 3) | 0.7 | 3 | 2.1 | Yes — most managers were promoted for technical skill and have had little practice giving feedback. | A cohort programme of three half-day workshops with practice in one-to-ones between sessions; owner: L&D lead; first cohort before the second site opens. | Feedback ratings in the next 360° reach 3 on average; direct reports confirm regular one-to-ones. |
| Organisational — all 300 staff | Data protection awareness | 2 | 1.7 (from a spot-check quiz of 40 staff) | 0.3 | 2 | 0.6 | Partly — a knowledge gap, and an annual refresher already exists in the company’s learning system. | No new programme; bring completion of the existing refresher up to date; owner: HR administrator; by the end of the quarter. | Refresher complete for all staff; a repeat spot-check at the next review. |
Task
Level 2: task analysis for the warehouse operative role
The order-error priority points at the warehouse operative role, and the new warehouse management system will change it at both sites. The role profile is rewritten for the role as it will be after go-live. The analysis finds one large training need, one gap that training would not fix and one role-wide skill that is fine.
- Scope of the analysis
- Warehouse operative role: 140 people across two shifts
- Evidence sources
- Manager assessment against the updated role profile, a practical exercise in the new system’s training environment, error reports by cause
- Re-assessment date
- One month after go-live, then at the annual review
| Level and scope | Competency or skill | Required level | Current level | Gap | Business impact | Priority score | Is training the answer? | Training action, owner and date | Success measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task — warehouse operatives (140) | Using the new warehouse management system | 3 | 1.0 (140 of 140 below 3) | 2.0 | 3 | 6.0 | Yes — a new system nobody has used yet. | Vendor training for ten super-users first, who then train their own shift in the training environment; owner: operations manager; all complete two weeks before go-live. | Every operative passes the practical exercise at level 3; errors traced to system use fall month on month after go-live. |
| Task — warehouse operatives (140) | Pick accuracy and checking | 4 | 3.2 (61 of 140 below 4) | 0.8 | 3 | 2.4 | Mostly no — error reports trace most errors to mislabelled bays and rushed end-of-shift picks, not to people who do not know how to check. | Relabel the bays and move the late collection cut-off; owner: site manager; this quarter. Coaching only for operatives whose error rate stays high after the fix. | Errors per thousand picks after the process fix, then by operative. |
| Task — warehouse operatives (140) | Manual handling | 3 | 3.1 (9 of 140 below 3) | 0 | 3 | 0 | No for the role; yes for the nine people below the required level. | No role-wide action; the nine repeat the practical manual handling session with their shift lead; owner: health and safety adviser; within a month. | All nine observed at level 3 at the next check. |
Individual
Level 3: individual analysis for a new shift manager
A shift manager promoted six months ago, analysed straight from the year-end review: the competency ratings, the manager’s comments and the upward feedback from the shift. The organisational analysis already covers coaching for every manager, so this person’s rows concentrate on what is specific to them, and the actions go into their individual development plan.
- Scope of the analysis
- One shift manager, six months in the role
- Evidence sources
- Year-end competency ratings and comments, upward feedback from the shift, the shift’s KPI results
- Re-assessment date
- The mid-year review
| Level and scope | Competency or skill | Required level | Current level | Gap | Business impact | Priority score | Is training the answer? | Training action, owner and date | Success measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual — shift manager | Planning and organising | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Yes — the review comments show rotas are built the day before rather than against the weekly forecast. | Development plan goal: build each week’s rota from the forecast, reviewed with the operations manager for the first month, plus a half-day workforce planning session; owner: the employee; by month two. | Overtime against forecast falls; rota changes made ahead of known peaks; rated 3 at the mid-year review. |
| Individual — shift manager | Handling difficult conversations | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Yes, alongside the coaching programme the organisational analysis already set up. | Join the first coaching cohort and shadow the HR adviser in two attendance conversations; owner: the employee, with HR; by month four. | Upward feedback at mid-year; attendance conversations held on time with notes recorded. |
| Individual — shift manager | Data analysis and use | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | No — the current level meets the requirement. | No action this period; recorded so it is looked at again next cycle. | Reviewed again at the mid-year review. |
From annual spreadsheet to live evidence
Where the TNA evidence comes from in CLEAR Talent
A spreadsheet TNA is rebuilt by hand every year from ratings copied out of review forms, and it is out of date as soon as someone changes role. In CLEAR Talent the inputs are already competency data. Each role profile carries its required competencies and target levels, drawn from a central competency library in which every level has behavioural anchors, and current levels come from evidence-based competency assessments. Dashboards show capability coverage by individual, team, department and competency and flag the gaps, and reports at individual, team and organisation level export to PDF or Excel.
The individual level follows on from the assessment. Each one drafts an individual development plan from the competencies that matter most for the role, ranked by the size of the gap, and a 360° review suggests a plan from its lowest-scoring, highest-importance competencies. Within a plan, CLEAR Talent recommends development actions, mentors and stretch assignments tied to the gap the plan is meant to close, and actions that need training spend carry a cost field and an approval workflow.
To be clear about the boundary: CLEAR Talent is not a learning management system and does not host course content. Development activity can be imported and exported via API and CSV or Excel. Learning impact dashboards then show whether the activity closed the gap it was meant to close, and the next assessment re-tests the same competencies on the same scale.