I’ve been saying this for a long time:
Just because an ISD Professional can identify a valid “training/ learning need” – does not in and of itself warrant meeting that need.
But some in the profession do not agree. They complain when management doesn’t fund everything – as if all K/S needs were of equal value, of equal consequence. They don’t take a bigger view than from where they sit. Or where their Learners’ sit, in the bigger picture.
Whether on the front-end of your “Intake” process – or preceding it as a separate step, at some point you should assess the ROI potential by estimating the values for the Risks and/or Rewards (the R in ROI, no?), and estimate the Investment costs for the likely solution-set.
And your Intake/Pre-Intake Processes should separate the wheat from the chaff, the needs from the wants. Surveying your audiences for what they “want” and believing that those are “needs” is taking a very loose view of what Learning should be about when in an Enterprise Context. It is not about meeting everyone’s wants – it is about meeting the needs of the business for human competence, and performance competence at all levels: individual, team, process, business unit, enterprise. For ROI.
And doing good for Society as a whole too, IMHO. Another Reward in the Return category.
Perhaps you need a set of proven ISD processes for large-scale ISD needs identification based on the Process Performance requirements – and for small scale Instructional and Informational Content development/maintenance efforts based on the Process Performance requirements – so that you really impact the process via formal human performance competence development.
# # #