HAYLEY SAYRE
Needs Assessment Project
Explore my needs assessment project with OptimaFlow, focusing on improving project management processes within the Learning and Development department.
01. Challenge
Background
OptimaFlow (pseudonym) is an international manufacturing company with more than 6,000 employees. Its Learning and Development (L&D) department designs and delivers training programs for customers, sales teams, and organization-wide use, such as employee onboarding.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Performance Problem
The L&D department did not have standardized project management processes in place. Team members kept track of projects individually, usually in spreadsheets or personal to-do lists. This created silos and led to duplicated work, delays, and miscommunications about timelines and expectations. Because of the segmented work, leadership also lacked visibility into project progress and workloads for individual employees.
​
This was a critical performance gap because it limited the team's ability to design and deliver training programs efficiently. These delays lowered the department's credibility across the organization and weakened alignment with OptimaFlow's strategic goals. ​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​​
Stakeholders
-
Project sponsor: Senior Manager of L&D
-
Direct stakeholders: L&D team members (7 instructional designers, 6 facilitators, and 1 coordinator)
-
Upstream stakeholders: HR and executive leadership
-
Downstream stakeholders: Employees and customers who receive training
Portion of the OptimaFlow org chart, with departments adjacent to L&D
Current vs. ideal project management performance in the L&D department
02. Methods
Models and Frameworks
We used both systematic and systemic approaches to guide this needs assessment. We used Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model (BEM) to conduct a root cause analysis (Gilbert, 1996). The BEM distinguishes between environmental and individual factors that contribute to the performance problem. Environmental factors include data, resources, and incentives, and individual factors include knowledge, capacity, and motives. Making this distinction is important, because determining where the problem is stemming from ensures that your solution will address the correct root cause.
​
​​​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​Data Tools
We used multiple sources of data to get a holistic view of the problem.
-
Semi-structured interviews with L&D leaders and team members helped us understand workflow challenges from a top-down perspective, and provided historical context.
-
A team-wide survey (10 participants) provided employee perception of their workload balance, challenges, understanding of their expectations, and ideas for solutions.
-
Document review of spreadsheets and tracking tools confirmed current practices.
-
Benchmarking against a leading technology company’s L&D processes provided an example of current best practices in the field.
​
​
Gilbert's BEM
Click the image to see our detailed needs assessment planning table
03. Causes
The Root of the Problem
Through our cause analysis, we found that the contributing factors were mainly environmental, not individual:
-
No standardized intake process. Requests came in and were processed in an informal way, through emails or conversations. The team did not have a central log to track requests.
-
Lack of prioritization criteria. Project prioritization was decided individually. There was not a clear connection between project priority and organizational goals.
-
Inconsistent tracking. Tracking tools included spreadsheets, programs like ClickUp or SmartSheet, and personal to-do lists (digital and paper).
-
Unclear timelines and visibility. Without shared visibility or a central tracking system, it was difficult for both peers and leaders to see each other's current projects. Determining workload and turnaround time was difficult.
Some individuals shared that they did not have project management training, but the main root cause was the lack of a shared, central tracking system.
​
Fishbone Diagram
We created the fishbone diagram below to visualize the root causes of the L&D team's project management challenges. By organizing the issues into categories based on Gilbert's BEM< we could see that most of the challenges were environmental rather than individual. WIth this clarity, we knew to design system-level interventions.
.png)
Fishbone diagram showing contributing factors to the performance problem.
04. Recommended Solutions
Based on our root cause analysis, we focused on recommendations that would improve structure and sustainability for the L&D team. To consider and select the best solutions, we used Hale’s Intervention Selection Matrix and a SWOT analysis.
​
Hale's Intervention Selection Matrix
This tool helped us connect the root causes to appropriate solutions. For example, the problem of inconsistent workflows and a lack of a shared system can be solved with design-focused interventions, such as creating standardized job aids and adopting shared project management software. The intervention groups we focused on, to organize and standardize, are highlighted in the abbreviated matrix below.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
SWOT Analysis
This tool gave us a structured way to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each option. We used it to check the feasibility of our proposed solutions by assessing how interventions would build on the team's strengths (such as strong teamwork) while considering the risks (such as limited time).
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Intervention 1: Standardize Project Management Processes
We recommended creating shared protocols for the five steps of the project lifespan:
-
Intake – All project requests will be logged with an online form.
-
Prioritization – Prioritize projects in the queue based on criteria such as urgency and scope.
-
Assignment – Assign tasks to team members based on current workload.
-
Timelines – Set a realistic and reliable goal for turnaround time.
-
Tracking – Require regular status updates for team and leadership visibility.
​
Benefits: Efficiency, accountability, and strategic alignment.
Challenges: Requires team buy-in and training.
​
Intervention 2: Implement a Centralized Project Management Tool
Once processes are defined, adopt a shared tool that provides:
-
Centralized and transparent tracking of project details and status updates.
-
Collaboration support, so teams can share documents, deadlines, and notes.
-
Scalability as projects and team size grow in the future.
​
Benefits: Transparency, accountability, and coordination.
Challenges: Requires a subscription cost and training time. ​There may be resistance if individuals prefer their current workflow.
​
Other Options Considered
-
Hire a project manager – Expensive and not warranted based on the volume of work.
-
Generic project management training – Would be unproductive without established processes and tools that are tailored to this team's needs.
-
Client-facing intake system – Not a priority based on volume of requests, and does not solve the internal workflow problems.
​
Recommended Sequencing
-
Standardize processes first: This helps to avoid streamlining workflows that are inefficient or not used consistently across the team.
-
Implement tool second: The tool will help to reinforce the established processes.
​​
SWOT Analysis Table
Hale's Intervention Selection Matrix
05. Insights
Reflections
This project allowed me to explore several OPWL learning objectives in a real-world scenario.
-
By using models such as Gilbert's BEM and Hale's Intervention Selection Matrix, we kept our approach systematic and systemic.
-
Interacting with both leadership and team members gave me an important opportunity to practice ethical principles.
-
Connecting our recommendations back to OptimaFlow's business goals helped highlight the importance of strategic alignment.
-
Working across multiple time zones strengthened my collaborative problem-solving skills.
​​
Looking Ahead
If we did it again, and given additional time, I would broaden the scope of our project to gather additional data at the start of the project. We weren't able to interview any downstream stakeholders such as customers or members of the sales team, and I'm sure they would have provided valuable insights into the impacts of the performance problem. I would also recommend that the L&D director and a few team members pilot 1-2 tools early in the process. This would give them an opportunity to identify pros and cons, and allow us to make a more precise recommendation that aligns with the team's goals.
​
Overall, this project was an enjoyable and practical way to get hands-on practice with root cause analysis, provide helpful recommendations to a real client, and connect OPWL learning to the real world.
​
References
Chevalier, R. (2008), The evolution of a performance analysis job aid. Performance Improvement, 47: 9-18. https://doi-org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/10.1002/pfi.20034
​
Gilbert, T. F. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (tribute edition). Washington, DC: The International Society for Performance Improvement.
​
Hale, J. (2007). The performance consultant's fieldbook: Tools and techniques for improving organizations and people (2nd ed.). Pfeiffer.
​
National Network of Libraries of Medicine. (2021). SWOT analysis. U.S. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nnlm.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/SWOT%20Analysis.pdf
Van Tiem, D., Moseley, J., & Dessinger, J. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement: Optimizing results through people, processes and organizations (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Watkins, R., West Meiers, M., & Visser, Y. (2012). A guide to assessing needs: Essential tools for collecting information, making decisions, and achieving development results. World Bank.