Eac583 task analysis

Task Analysis of Training Professionals 1

Running Head: TASK ANALYSIS OF TWO TRAINING PROFESSIONALS

A Task Analysis of Two Training Professionals

Lisa Suzanne Vallad

North Carolina State University


Introduction

The role of instructional designers and training professionals is constantly evolving.

According to Roytek (2010), “given global economic conditions that are increasingly forcing

organizations to downsize while simultaneously requiring an increase in productivity from their

remaining, reduced workforce, instructional designers are increasingly called upon to produce

higher quality instructional programs using ever more efficient technologies” (p. 170). What

tasks, then, comprise a training professional’s role in the workplace? In order to answer this

question, a task analysis of two training professionals was conducted, to identify their tasks,

roles, and responsibilities in the workplace.

Conducting a Task Analysis

A task analysis, according to Swanson (2007), is a component of documenting workplace

expertise, and involves “detailing the expertise required to perform each task” (p. 129). Burkhart

(1995) describes a job task analysis as “a procedure whereby supervisors and competent workers

are observed, questioned, interviewed, and asked to supply materials so that the work related

competencies and required skills to perform a job can be identified” (p. 2). In this task analysis,

two training professionals, a Learner Analyst and a Training Specialist, from the University of

Colorado, were interviewed and surveyed to obtain the tasks specific to their positions.

Furthermore, a review of organizational records relating to the Learner Analyst and Training

Specialist were reviewed.


Organization

The University of Colorado is a public research university with four campuses located

throughout Colorado. The mission of the University of Colorado is to “serve Colorado, the

nation, and the world through leadership in high-quality education and professional training,

public service, advancing research and knowledge, and state-of-the-art health care” (Mission,

para.1). Both individuals interviewed for this paper work for the University of Colorado System

Administration, a centralized office that provides services to all four campus locations. The

System Administration offices of the University of Colorado consist of the following centralized

services: payroll and benefits, human resources, legal, University controller, and employee

learning and development.

Interviewees

Interviewee I, a Learner Analyst in the Employee Learning and Development Department,

was hired to design and develop effective training for the employees of the University of

Colorado. The Employee Learning and Development Department consists of four employees; a

Director, a Learning Analyst (Interviewee I), a Learning Coordinator, and a Coordinator.

Interviewee I’s main functions include the development of tools to streamline instructional

design processes, eLearning and instructional design, and the development of project

management courseware (personal communication, November, 2010).

Interviewee II, a Procurement Training and Documentation Specialist in the Office of

University Controller, was hired to manage university-wide financial training services, and to

prepare materials that document and guide end users through university business processes.

Interviewee II works as a part of Finance and Procurement Business Services, which is

comprised of a team of seven individuals. Finance and Procurement Business Services has a


Director, two Help Desk Consultants, a Help Desk Manager, a Communication Technology

Specialist, a Finance Training and Documentation Specialist, and a Procurement Training and

Documentation Specialist (Interviewee II). Interviewee II’s main functions include strategic

planning for training, creating and updating instructional materials, and course development and

design.

Review of the Literature

Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2007) describe the goal of instructional design as “making

learning more efficient and effective, and to make learning less difficult” (p. 2) and that the goal

of the instructional designer is to “design and develop instruction that will improve performance

in a most effective and efficient manner” (p. 3). The work environment and culture within which

instructional designers operate is under constant fluctuation. In order to understand current job

demands and needs of instructional designers and training specialists, it is imperative to gain an

understanding of current issues and trends in instructional design and training and development.

A current trend in instructional design and training and development is the transition from

traditional, face-to-face training and course delivery, to an online training and course delivery.

According to Moller, Foshay, Wellesley, and Huett (2008), “the growth of online distance

learning (eLearning) is explosive in almost all sectors” (p. 70). It is therefore imperative that

instructional designers and training specialists immerse themselves in all aspects of eLearning. A

challenge to instructional designers and training specialists, according to Moller et al. (2008), “is

not only to evolve the field, but also to assure that the products of sound professional design

practice lead the e-learning enterprise” (p. 71).

There is also an existing gap between theory and practice in the instructional design and

training and development fields. Yanchar, South, Williams, Allen and Wilson (2009) explain that


“although a primary purpose of theory construction is to provide conceptual tools for improving

instructional design practice, this aspect of work in the field is often overlooked” (p. 40).

Yanchar et al. (2009) further explains that “more specifically, there is little exploration of how

designers actually view formal theories and use them for various design tasks in context – such

as organizing content, providing learner structure, and evaluating learner outcomes” (p.40).

Because instruction design theory is a great framework for practice, it is considered an aspect of

training professionals to have a grasp of instructional design theory, in order to translate the

theory into practice.

Finally, there has been an identified need for project management skills in the instructional

design and training and development fields. According to Van Rooij (2010), “instructional

designers must possess both a sound instructional design knowledge base and solid project

management skills that will enable them to complete courseware projects on time, on budget, and

in conformance with client expectations” (p. 852). Van Rooij (2010) further explains that courses

in project management aren’t typically included in instructional design program curriculum (p.

853). Project management skills would enable both the instructional designer and training

specialist to effectively manage and monitor their ongoing projects, especially in a time-sensitive

and deadline oriented environment.

Data Collection Methods

Various data collection methods exist in conducting research. For the task analysis of training

professionals, three data collection methods were employed; interviews, survey questionnaire,

and organizational records. These three methods were used to find the appropriate balance

between quantitative and qualitative data, and, according to Swanson (2007), “more than one

method or source of data collection is generally required to gain enough information to


understand a phenomenon” (p. 108). Using multiple data collection methods also increases the

reliability and validity of the results.

All three data collection methods were used as forms of qualitative research. According to

Creswell (2009), qualitative research is “a means for exploring and understanding the meaning

individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (p.4). Characteristics of qualitative

research include collecting data in a natural setting, using multiple sources of data, using

inductive data analysis, and interpreting results (Creswell, 2009, p. 176). Plewis and Mason

(2005) concur with Creswell, by stating that “the analysis of qualitative data requires the

organization of varied and complex narratives, descriptions, perceptions, perspectives,

interviews, and observation” (p. 192). Typically, a review of organizational records would be

considered quantitative research, however, in this analysis, due to the interpretive nature of the

results, the review or organizational records is considered to be qualitative research.

There are advantages and disadvantages to using qualitative research methods. For example, a

strength of qualitative research described by Creswell (2009), is that qualitative methods

typically involve multiple sources of data, which increases the validity of the results (p. 175).

However, a disadvantage of qualitative research, according to Creswell, is that it is an

interpretative method, and therefore, is subject to the biases, values, personal background,

history, culture, and socioeconomic status of the inquirer (p. 177). The research in this analysis

was designed and conducted with the intent to address both the advantages and disadvantages of

qualitative research.


Data Collection Method – Interview

Swanson (2007), describes the interview data collection method as “enabling analysts to

gather information directly from people in the workplace or people connected in various ways to

the organization and its processes in person, in groups, and also by telephone” (p. 109). The

interviews of the two training professionals focused on their specific roles within their

department, their short and long term goals, and the mission and goals of their department. The

interview also focused on identifying key job tasks of each interviewee, and challenges and

rewards of their jobs. These questions were specifically included in the interview, as these

answers were more abstract in nature, and better communicated via face to face communication

than in a survey. The questions were organized to focus on the individual, on the job processes

themselves, and on the organization. Also, according to Swanson (2007), “expert analysts use

interviews as a first step for discovering the most useful content for a questionnaire” (p. 112).

The questions developed and implemented during the interview, and the responses

collected, were then compared to the questions developed and used for the survey questionnaire.

The interview data collection method was selected in accordance with Swanson’s (2007) view

that the interview data collection method is “a useful technique for discovering what happens at

the organizational, process, team, and/or individual job levels” (p. 109). The interviews were

conducted in face to face meetings with the interviewees, and responses were collected via

electronic notes by the interviewer. Each interview was conducted over the course of

approximately one hour. The interview guide used to collect data can be found in Appendix A.

Data Collection Method – Survey Questionnaire

A survey questionnaire was also selected as a data collection method. According to

Swanson (2007), a “survey questionnaire is often used as a primary data collection tool”, and, if


“done correctly, no tool is more efficient for obtaining data from a large, dispersed population”

(p. 112). Although the two training professionals in this analysis represent a small population,

the survey questionnaire was an effective tool as it allowed the training professionals to respond

to the survey at their leisure, and also complemented the interview, in the sense that it allowed

for the training professionals to expand on information provided during the interview. According

to Swanson (2007), “the questionnaire then offers a way to accurately evaluate the extent and the

credibility of the facts and opinions gathered by interviews” (p. 112).

The survey contained several open-ended questions that allowed the interviewees to

contemplate their answers, rather than having their answers restricted by the time provided

during the interview. The questions included in the survey were used to expand on questions

asked during the interview, and to also provide very specific data questions, such as length of

service, educational background, and professional background, and were organized by beginning

with the least complex question and ending with the most complex question. The survey was

developed electronically, and was submitted to the interviewees via email. According to

feedback from the interviewees, the survey took approximately thirty minutes to complete.

Responses to the survey were then collected electronically, using the survey development tool

“Survey Monkey”.

Data Collection Method – Organizational Records

Finally, organizational records, such as job descriptions and position manuals were reviewed

to identify existing job task information. This method, although described as a review of

organizational records, is slightly different than the traditional review of organizational records.

According to Swanson (2007), a review of organizational records typically includes identifying

items such as employee turnover, absenteeism, grievances filed, etc. (p. 118). In this analysis, the


organizational record data collection method was to review job descriptions and position

manuals in order to compare and contrast the tasks of both training professionals.

Analysis

Through the review of the interview responses, survey questionnaire responses, and

organizational records, it became evident that although each position is quite different, both

Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II (Training Specialist) are strategically

involved in the delivery of training and instructional design services, and also both committed to

customers at the University of Colorado. The review of the job descriptions of Interviewee I

(Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II (Training Specialist), involved a compare/contrast of job

tasks as described in the job descriptions. The job tasks were then categorized (see the table as

presented in Analysis – Job Description), and compared and verified through information

obtained during the interview and survey questionnaire. The job descriptions were then

compared to external job descriptions. The interview responses that were recorded electronically

by the interviewer, and the survey questionnaire responses that were collected electronically, for

both Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II (Training Specialist) involved a

compare/contrast of answers, and key themes were identified through analyzing the responses.

The responses were also compared to existing literature on task analyses and issues relating to

the instructional design/training and development field. Finally, the key themes and tasks that

were identified were compared to the detailed task analysis as described by Swanson (2007) in

Analysis for Improving Performance. Through the various analyses conducted, it was identified

that the tasks of both positions used to deliver the training and instructional design services are

also significantly different.


Analysis – Job Description

According to Swanson (2007), a “job description is a statement that establishes the scope of

responsibilities of a specific job within a specific organization” (p.135). Swanson (2007)

identifies two components of reviewing job descriptions; the first component is to review

existing job descriptions, and the second component is to obtain external job descriptions from

external sources, such as professional references, associations or other companies (p. 136). As

part of the task analysis of two training professionals, the job descriptions of Interviewee I

(Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II (Training Specialist) were obtained and reviewed. External

job descriptions for a Learner Analyst/Instructional Designer position, and for a Training

Specialist position, were also obtained. In reviewing the job descriptions, it became evident that

although both positions are considered training professionals, the positions of Learner Analyst

and Training Specialist are quite different.

According to the existing job description, the key components of Interviewee I’s (Learner

Analyst) position are to design, develop, and deliver training events, through working with senior

managers to gather program learning requirements, researching benchmarking practices in

eLearning, developing and maintaining web based learning events, and creating and maintaining

a measurement system that documents employee feedback, compliance course completion, and

the use of online learning events. The job description is in concurrence with the components of

the position as identified by Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) themselves; Interviewee I (Learner

Analyst) views “the development of tools to streamline processes, instructional design, and

development of project management courseware” as the three most critical tasks of their position

(personal communication, November, 2010).


The key components of Interviewee II’s (Training Specialist) position, as identified in the

job description, are to design, develop, and deliver training, to measure the effectiveness of

training and develop training communications, and to design and develop training resources.

According to Interviewee II (Training Specialist), the job description is accurate, as Interviewee

II (Training Specialist) identified the three most critical tasks of their position as “training course

development and design, training strategic planning, and the development and design of

instructional materials and training resources” (personal communication, November, 2010). A

comparison of the job descriptions of Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II

(Training Specialist) is as follows:

Category Interviewee 1 (Learner Analyst) Interviewee 2 (Training

Specialist)

Purpose of Hire This position supports the design and

development of effective training for the

employees of the University of

Colorado.

This position manages

university-wide financial

training services and

prepares materials that

document and guide end

users through university

business processes. This

position is responsible for

all aspects of financial

compliance training.

Training Design and

Implementation

The instructional design, development

and delivery of formal and informal

training events, with appropriate

evaluation tools, that supports employee

development and compliance

requirements.

Develops and delivers on-

going procurement training

programs and initiative

specific financial training

need. Prepares educational

resources and

documentation materials to

support university –wide

procurement training

initiatives

Determining Training

/Learning Needs Work with senior managers and

directors throughout CU to gather the

learning requirements to meet their

program needs.

Determines the training

needs of university

employees relative to

financial compliance

policies and procedures.

Research Research benchmarking practices in


eLearning as well as current practices

with web based technologies and tools.

Strategic Planning

Works with the OUC’s

Communication Specialist

to develop a communication

plan for financial training

initiatives that includes

identification of target

populations, communication

with prospective trainees,

and follow up with those

needing to complete

training.

Web-Based Learning

Development

Development and maintenance of web

based learning events used to optimize

employee development.

Evaluation/Assessment Create and maintain a measurement

system that clearly documents employee

feedback, compliance course completion

and the usage of online learning events.

Assesses financial training

effectiveness, including

administering course

quizzes, and participant

evaluations.

The job descriptions of Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II (Training

Specialist) were then compared to external sources. For Interviewee I (Learner Analyst), ten job

postings for Instructional Designers on the American Society for Training and Development

website were reviewed (ASTD Job Bank). Out of the ten job postings, the majority of the job

requirements for an Instructional Designer included the development of eLearning courses,

project management, and client management. The development of eLearning courses and project

management job descriptions are consistent with the job description obtained for Interviewee I

(Learner Analyst). For Interviewee II (Training Specialist), ten job postings for Training

Specialists on the American Society for Training and Development website were also reviewed

(http://jobs.astd.org/jobs). Out of the ten job postings, the majority of the job descriptions for a

Training Specialist included strategic planning for training, the design and development of


training courses, and the design and development of instructional materials, which is consistent

with the job description obtained for Interviewee II (Training Specialist).

Analysis – Task Identification

According to Swanson (2007), each task from a task inventory can be detailed using one of

three methods; procedural task analysis, system task analysis, or knowledge task analysis

(p.149). Procedural tasks are made up of “people-thing work behaviors that are highly

observable and step by step, system tasks are made up of interlocking dimensions of work tasks

around people-hardware systems or people-knowledge systems that are not usually observable,

and knowledge tasks are made up of work behaviors requiring more general methods, concepts,

and theories as they relate to people-idea and people-people work behaviors” (Swanson, 2007, p.

149). The key tasks of each interviewee as identified through the interviews and survey

questionnaire were reviewed, and key themes and trends were identified. Each key theme and

trend was then reviewed, and identified as procedural tasks, system tasks, or knowledge tasks.

The percentage of time each Interviewee spent on each key themed task was also identified.

Interviewee I (Learner Analyst):

Task Group Task Type % of Time

eLearning Design Procedural/System 40%

Develop eLearning design

tools and procedures Procedural/System 30%

Research and analysis Knowledge 20%

Project Management Procedural/System 5%

Learning Management

Support

Procedural/System 5%


Interviewee II (Training Specialist):

Task Group Task Type % of Time

Creating and updating

instructional resources Procedural/System 70%

Design and deliver in-

person training tasks Procedural/Knowledge 20%

Strategic training planning

tasks, including research Knowledge 10%

Although the job tasks themselves are quite different, Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and

Interviewee II (Training Specialist) identified similar skills needed to be a Learner

Analyst/Training Specialist. According to Interviewee I (Learner Analyst), a Learner Analyst

must be detail-oriented, consistent in their processes, and must have the skills to streamline

processes (personal communication, November, 2010). Interviewee II (Training Specialist)

identified similar skills needed to be a Training Specialist, by stating that a Training

Specialist must “be detail-oriented, and must always be looking for ways to be more

efficient” (personal communication, November, 2010). Also, both interviewees identified

that it takes approximately six to nine months to fully learn all tasks related to their positions

(personal communications, November, 2010).

Analysis – Work Environments

Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II (Training Specialist) described similar

work environments during both their interviews and on the survey questionnaire. Common

themes in describing their perspective work environments were identified as a collaborative work

environment in which one’s individual contributions were valued (personal communications,

November, 2010). The problem-solving and decision-making processes for both departments of

the interviewees are also very similar. Both interviewees described their problem-solving and


decision-making processes as first resolving the issues and making the decisions on their own,

and if that could not be achieved, then elevating the decision/problem to the next appropriate

level of authority within their departmental hierarchy (personal communications, November,

2010).

Analysis - Challenges

The interviewees also identified challenges specific to their jobs and organization.

Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) stated that the most significant challenge in their current role as

a Learner Analyst is a lack of resources. Interviewee I’s (Learner Analyst) department is

currently in need of instructional designers with specific expertise, and that often times, they

have to outsource tasks outside of their department due to a lack of expertise (personal

communication, November, 2010). Interviewee II (Training Specialist) stated that the most

significant challenge in their current role is not receiving information on a timely basis, and a

lack of project management from program managers (personal communication, November,

2010). Interestingly, the challenges identified by both interviewees are organizational and

process challenges, rather than challenges that are unique to their positions.

Analysis – Goals

Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II (Training Specialist) both have

strategically different short-term and long-term goals for their positions. Interviewee I (Learner

Analyst) identified their short-term goals as “fluid and changing all of the time, but, the short-

term goals all relate directly to instructional design projects and creating instructional design

tools to bring consistency into the work environment” (personal communication, November,

2010). Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) continued to identify the long-term goals of the Learner

Analyst position as “compliance with federal guidelines and regulations, and bringing online


instruction and design up to federal standards” (personal communication, November, 2010).

Interviewee II (Training Specialist) identified their short-term goals as “strategic planning and

identifying key instructional strategies for training and documentation” and identified their long-

term goals as “creating solid training and documentation” (personal communication, November,

2010).

Discussion

The two training professionals in this task analysis had considerably different identified job

tasks. Interviewee I’s (Learner Analyst) job tasks were more technical in nature, and focused

more on system and procedural tasks, whereas Interviewee II’s (Training Specialist) job tasks

were more abstract in nature, and focused more on knowledge and system tasks. Therefore,

Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) must have a strong background in technical expertise, whereas

Interviewee II (Training Specialist) must have a strong background in theoretical and

pedagogical knowledge, in order to be successful in their respective positions.

In the eLearning development process, Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) collaborates with

subject matter experts to develop content for each course. According to Morrison et. al. (2007), a

subject matter expert is “a person qualified to provide information about content and resources

relating to all aspects of the topics for which instruction is to be designed, and is responsible for

checking accuracy of content treatment in activities, materials and examinations” (p.18).

Sometimes, the instructor may serve as their own SME. Although Interviewee I (Learner

Analyst) collaborates with SME’s to develop course content, Interviewee II (Training Specialist)

serves as their own SME. Interviewee II (Training Specialist) is responsible for updating and

developing course content however, Interviewee II (Training Specialist) is also expected to be an

SME on all procurement related policies, procedures, and forms.


Surprisingly, the departments of both interviewees have little to no interaction with each

other. Based on the job task analysis of both Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II

(Training Specialist), efficiencies and operational productivity gains could be achieved through

the synergistic collaboration of both departments. For example, if both departments met on a

monthly basis, Interviewee II (Training Specialist) could provide Interviewee I (Learner Analyst)

with a current training strategic plan, whereas Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) could provide

Interviewee II (Training Specialist) with any current or evolving technological trends that could

impact course design. Each Interviewee would have the opportunity to learn from the other, as

both their job tasks have been identified as being significantly different. Both departments could

also collaborate on project management courseware design and implementation, as it is a current

trend and identified need of both departments.

Conclusion

Prior to conducting this job task analysis of two training professionals within the University

of Colorado, multiple employees, and even leadership, of the University of Colorado had the

impression that Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II (Training Specialist)

performed the same job tasks and had the same job responsibilities. This job task analysis

identifies that although Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II (Training Specialist)

may have the same end goals of designing and delivering training and resources for employees at

the University of Colorado, and that they have the same customer-service focused business

processes, that their jobs tasks and responsibilities are significantly different. Furthermore, this

task analysis has identified potential operating efficiency gains through the collaboration of the

departments of Interviewee I (Learner Analyst) and Interviewee II (Training Specialist).


References

ASTD Job Bank. American Society for Training and Development. Retrieved November 1,

2010, from http://www.astd.org/

Burkhart, J., & Colorado State Dept. of Education, D. (1995). Conducting the job task analysis.

Retrieved from ERIC database.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for

instructional design on the potential of the web. TechTrends: Linking Research and

Practice to Improve Learning, 52(3), 70-75.

Morrison, G., Ross, S., & Kemp, J. (2007). Designing effective instruction. 5th ed. Danvers, MA:

John Wiley & Sons.

Plewis, I., & Mason, P. (2005). What works and why: Combining quantitative and qualitative

approaches in large‐scale evaluations. International Journal of Social Research

Methodology, 8(3), 185-194.

Roytek, M. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by

instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170-180.

Swanson, R. (2007). Analysis for improving performance. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-

Koehler Publishers, Inc.

University of Colorado. https://www.cu.edu

Van Rooij, S. (2010). Project management in instructional design: ADDIE is not enough. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 852-864.

Yanchar, S., South, J., Williams, D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. (2010). Struggling with theory? A

qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 39-60.


Appendix A: Interview Guide

1. Interviewee:

2. What is your position title? Could you please provide me with your official job

description?

3. How would you describe your work environment and organizational culture?

4. What are your short-term goals for your position?

5. What are your long-term goals for your position?

6. What are your daily on-the-job requirements and responsibilities?

7. Which three responsibilities do you spend most of your time?

8. What challenges do you encounter when completing your job tasks?

9. Please give me a brief overview of your organization and your department.

10. What is the mission of your organization and your department?

11. How does your specific role support the organization and your department?

12. What skills are needed to be a good XXXX?

13. What is the most rewarding part of your job?

14. How does the organization see your role as part of the organization?

15. Do you feel the organization values your role in the organization?

16. What are the three most valued/expected tasks of your position?

17. What changes would you implement in order for you to complete your job more

efficiently and effectively?


Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire

1. What is your position title?

2. What is your organization?

3. How long have you been in your position?

4. Please describe your professional experience.

5. Please describe your educational experience.

6. How would you describe the decision making process for your position?

7. How would you describe the problem solving process for your position?

8. What is the average length of time required to be able to perform your job at a successful

level (i.e. how long does it take to learn your job tasks)?

9. Who are the major customers you support within your organization?

10. Please list your major work tasks and responsibilities, and indicate the % of your time

spent on each task. Please begin with the most significant task relating to your job.

Eac583 task analysis

Education

Transcript of Eac583 task analysis