A training needs analysis presentation should make the proposed learning activity easy to question. Which task is going wrong? What can people already do? What would practice change, and what needs a different fix? Lead with those answers before showing a course calendar.
Once the evidence and proposed response are clear, you can turn the assessment brief into an editable slide draft. Give Presenti the findings and their limits together, so the presentation does not turn a tentative explanation into a confident claim.
Separate a skill gap from a workflow problem
Imagine a service team that frequently sends incomplete requests to another department. A manager asks for refresher training. Before agreeing, watch people complete the task and inspect the request form. Someone may know the rule but have nowhere to record the information; another person may have the right field but not know when it applies. Those observations call for different responses.
CIPD’s learning needs guidance connects capability needs with organizational priorities and recommends considering the appropriate response rather than defaulting to a course. That distinction belongs near the beginning of the deck, where the decision is being framed.
Write the opening request narrowly: “Approve a short practice session on exception handling, alongside a form change for missing reference numbers.” A request to “improve service quality through training” is too broad to tell the audience what they are approving.
A worked example: two problems, two responses
The following figures describe a fictional internal service team. They demonstrate how to organize findings; they are not Presenti customer results.
The team reviews two sources. First, all 24 team members complete the same practice task. Second, a reviewer examines 80 requests from one week. Keep these sources separate: a person’s performance on a practice task and a defect in a real request are different units of analysis.
| Evidence | Observation | What it supports | What remains unknown |
|---|---|---|---|
| Common practice task; 24 participants | 18 apply the exception rule correctly; 6 do not | Six participants need further diagnosis and targeted practice on that task | Whether the task reflects every exception encountered at work |
| Review of 80 requests from one week | 20 lack a required reference number | A missing-information problem in this set of requests | Whether knowledge, field design or another factor explains the omissions |
| Form walkthrough | The reference field is labeled optional | The form conflicts with the stated requirement | How many omissions would remain after the form is corrected |
The first result is 6 out of 24, or 25%, on the observed practice task. The second is 20 out of 80, also 25%, but it describes requests, not staff. Do not place the two percentages in one “skills gap” chart. The matching numbers hide different questions.
Nor do these findings establish that the same six people submitted the incomplete requests. The example has no person-level link between the two sources. A slide should not imply a relationship that the underlying records cannot show.
Build six slides around the proposed intervention
| Slide | Useful headline | What the audience should see |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Decision | Approve targeted practice and correct the request form | The two actions, the affected team and the resources requested |
| 2. Required task | A complete request needs the exception decision and reference number | A short task description and the actual standard used for assessment |
| 3. Capability evidence | Six of 24 participants missed the exception rule in the common task | Counts, the task conditions and the limited conclusion |
| 4. Workflow evidence | The form labels a required field as optional | The conflicting instruction and the 20 omissions among 80 reviewed requests |
| 5. Proposed response | Use practice for the rule; use a form change for the field | Who does each piece of work, its scope and its estimated effort |
| 6. Follow-up | Check task performance and request completeness separately | What will be observed, when, and who will interpret the results |
Slide three can use a simple count bar with “18 correct” and “6 needing follow-up.” Slide four is better served by the relevant form detail and one short annotation. Repeating a red-and-green skills heatmap on both slides would make a process problem look like a people problem.
Use aggregated observations in a wider management meeting. Detailed individual assessment records belong with the people authorised to use them; a public deck does not need a ranking of named employees.
Show time commitments without inventing savings
Suppose the proposed session lasts 45 minutes and initially includes six participants. Participant time is 4.5 hours: 6 × 0.75. If the facilitator needs two hours to prepare and 45 minutes to run it, that adds 2.75 hours. The combined estimate is 7.25 hours before scheduling, administration or any later coaching.
That calculation describes planned effort. It does not show the return on training. Keep any cost conversion separate and use the organization’s agreed rate. If the form correction has no estimate yet, write “estimate pending from the form owner” rather than giving it an invented zero cost.
The proposal can still be useful without a savings forecast. It asks for a small, bounded intervention tied to a specific observed task. A larger rollout can wait until there is evidence that the response is useful.
Choose a follow-up that answers the original question
After the session, use an equivalent task with different details to see whether participants can apply the exception rule, rather than recall the original answer. Record the conditions and the number assessed. A short satisfaction poll tells you how the session was received; it does not show that the task can now be completed.
For the form change, inspect a comparable set of requests and report both missing references and total requests reviewed. A lower omission count may simply reflect fewer requests. Show the rate and any differences in workload or request type before describing a change in performance.
If results improve after both changes, the combined follow-up does not isolate training as the cause. If they do not improve, return to the observed task and the workflow. Repeating the same course for more people is not the only next move.
Give Presenti the evidence, not just the topic
Presenti offers topic input and a Paste Text option. Use Paste Text for the brief below so the counts, distinctions and decision remain available during drafting. Decide which findings support training before you generate the slides; the brief should explain that reasoning.
Create a six-slide management presentation about a fictional service-team assessment. Ask for targeted exception-handling practice and a correction to the request form. In a common practice task, 18 of 24 participants applied the rule correctly and 6 did not. Separately, 20 of 80 reviewed requests lacked a reference number. The form labels that field optional. Do not link the six participants to the 20 requests. Separate capability evidence from workflow evidence. Include the proposed 45-minute session for six participants, 2 hours of facilitator preparation, and 45 minutes of delivery. Show the 7.25-hour combined estimate as planned effort, not savings. The form-change estimate is pending. Finish with separate follow-up measures. Do not invent results, dates or approvals.
Read the proposed outline before spending time on the design. The two evidence sources should still be on separate slides. If the draft says “25% of staff caused incomplete requests,” correct it from the source: that conclusion is unsupported.
End with the choice the manager needs to make: approve the proposed session and form correction, request more diagnosis, or change the scope.
