Within most traditional problem-solving frameworks, practical decision making starts with either a formal or informal assessment of “needs.” These initial assessment processes are the preliminary steps in determining the performance criteria by which alternative solutions can later be evaluated and selected. To facilitate this critical step in problem solving, needs assessments typically identify and prioritize discrepancies between the current and desired accomplishments. And these assessments are most valuable when you define “needs” solely as the gap between what results should be accomplished and what results are currently being accomplished without discussion of disparities in resources, inputs, processes, or other means.
Ryan Watkins, Associate Professor, George Washington University. Web: www.ryanrwatkins.com
Ryan Watkins, Associate Professor, George Washington University. Web: www.ryanrwatkins.com
In organizational practice, however, needs assessments are often informally skirted when organizations immediately respond to a request (for example, “we need xyz training program,” “I need a new computer,” or “we need more distance education courses”) with either a causal analysis or a course development process while the yet-unverified need continues to be assumed as a performance problem.
By assuming, and neither measuring or validating that the “need” identified in the request is actually a reflection of a discrepancy between the results that are expected to be achieved and those currently being achieved, the problem-solving and decision-making processes begin without adequate justification. Not only may the “need” be exaggerated, misunderstood, or miscommunicated, the “need” may actually be a strength or asset when measured. But without a systematic assessment process, the assumed “need” drives decision-making rather than allowing for measurable evidence and clear criteria to be the drivers for a successful intervention.
As a result, a comprehensive and sys-tematic needs assessment process is neces-sary for practical decision making. Comprehensive assessments are defined on multiple dimensions, including a first dimension that requires that the assessment collect evidence that includes both hard and soft data; hard data being those that are independently verifiable and soft data being those that are not independently verifiable. For the assessment process, this distinction of data (rather than the traditional qualitative and quantitative differentiation) is of greater value, since it is the ability to validate the data that is essential to making good decisions (more so than the tools and techniques used to classify the data).
A second dimension for a comprehensive assessment is that it must address results at three levels of focus: societal, organizational, and individual/small group. At the societal level the assessment focuses on the outcomes and contributions of the organization to the community at large (i.e., clients, clients’ clients, and others). The organizational level of a comprehensive assessment examines the outputs of the organization, and at the individual/small group level the assessment observes the distinct products of individuals or teams (Kaufman, Oakley-Brown, Watkins, & Leigh, 2003). Only when all three levels of results have been included in the assessment can problem-solving processes adequately align the types of results to be accomplished with the distinct beneficiaries of those results.
A third dimension is the comparative relationship of the current results being accomplished (i.e., What Is) with those that desired or required (i.e., What Should Be). This relationship of results is essential for identifying discrepancies and ties the assessment process to the long-term strategic directions of the organization. By collecting data during the assessment that addresses both the current achievements and the necessary achievements for longterm success, the assessment’s data can be most valuable during decision-making (specifically, providing the required data for the next three dimensions of comprehensive assessment).
Six Dimensions of a Comprehensive Assessment
| Dimension | Characteristics |
|---|---|
| Data verification | Hard and Soft (i.e., externally verifiable and not externally verifiable) |
| Results focus | Outcomes/Societal, Outputs/Organizational, and Products/Individual |
| Comparative | What Should Be (i.e., desired or required) and What Is (i.e., current) |
| Needs and strengths | Relationship of data regarding What Should Be and What Is |
| Spread | Size of the discrepancy between What Should Be and What Is |
| Perceived priorities | Relative relationship of strength or need to others identified during data analysis |
A fourth dimension of comprehensive assessments is the inclusion of both needs and strengths in the analysis of data. By comparing data collected with regards to the results that should be accomplished with the data concerning what results are be achieved, the assessment can define both the strengths and the needs of the organization. When the desired or required results are greater than those currently being achieved, then a “need” exists. Likewise, when the desired or required results are being achieved (i.e., the data regarding “What Is” are equal to greater than the data regarding “What Should Be”), then a “strength” has been identified.
By identifying both needs and strengths in the single assessment, decision-makers can better determine how to prioritize resources. Many strengths can be leveraged to help close needs. Some strengths may be maintained and monitored, just as some needs will be monitored and closed at a later time. In any case, having the availability of data for comparing data regarding the current accomplishments and future requirements is valuable to most any problem solving process.
A fifth dimension of a comprehensive assessment that supports useful decision-making is identifying the spread of data between What Should Be and What Is. The greater the differential between data sup-porting these two states (i.e., future requirements and current accomplishments) then the more attention decision makers should likely pay to the associated strength or need. This isn’t to say that strengths or needs defined by small discrepancies are any less important the those defined by larger differences, but the size of the strength or need as defined by the data from the assessment should be included in the analysis of the data as a key variable in a problem-solving process.
The final dimension of a comprehensive needs assessment is the prioritization of a strength or need as defined by its relative position to other strengths or needs. For example, if an assessment included survey data from employees (identifying perceived discrepancies in results) on a Likert-type scale, and responses indicated that there was a need with regards to customer service support with an average What Is score of 1 and a What Should Be score of 3; And the survey indicated that employees perceived another need with technical support, scoring What Is at 3 on average and What Should Be at 5. Then, in problem solving, decision-makers may want to consider that employees view the size (or spread) of the needs as roughly equal (2 points on a Likert-type scale), although they perceive that the need related to tech-nical support is more critical given its higher position on the scale relative to the customer service support need.
By collecting and analyzing data along all six dimensions of comprehensive needs assessment, the assessment process can better support valid and useful decisionmaking. A dual-matrix assessment design (with data being collected for both What Should Be and What Is) is one way to develop assessments that are capable of supporting these six dimensions (see Kaufman, Watkins, & Leigh, 2001).
Acknowledgment: Thanks to Doug Leigh from Pepperdine University for insights and assistance in writing this article.
Note: Any opinion, findings, and conclusion or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Foundation.
