| Course | MSHR 6625 Building Human Capital Through Training and Development |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Needs assessment |
| Length | About 770 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Human Resource Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSHR 6625 Week 2
Testing a Request for Tablet Training: A Three-Level Needs Assessment of a Water Utility's Field Crews Using Organization, Task and Person Analysis, Each Fed by Its Own Evidence
Student Name
Walden University
MSHR 6625: Building Human Capital Through Training and Development
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Testing a Request for Tablet Training: A Three-Level Needs Assessment of a Water Utility's Field Crews Using Organization, Task and Person Analysis, Each Fed by Its Own Evidence
The Request and the Approach
Mill Creek Water District's field operations manager has requested tablet training for all field technicians, citing late and incomplete mobile work orders since the move from paper. This assessment tests that request using the three levels of analysis McGehee and Thayer (1961) proposed and later writers developed: an organization level (where is training needed, and will the setting support it?), a task level (what does the work demand?) and a person level (who is missing the knowledge or skill?) (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). Each level draws on its own evidence rather than on the manager's account alone.
Method
Three sources were used. First, three months of work-order records exported from the mobile system, about 9,400 orders, showing when each was closed and which fields were completed. Second, two days of ride-alongs with each of three crew types: meter service, main repair and hydrant and valve maintenance. Third, fifteen-minute interviews with 18 technicians, six from each crew type, and with all five crew supervisors.
Organization Analysis
The organization analysis asks whether Mill Creek is set up for technicians to use what they might learn. It found three conditions working against the change. Tablets lose their connection across roughly one third of the district, chiefly in the hilly north, and cannot sync while out there. Supervisors still sign paper tickets, and two of the five said they prefer paper because they can review it at their desks. And no one has told technicians that completed asset fields matter; field data feeds the asset management system, but technicians never see how it is used. These are conditions training cannot change and that would undermine it.
Task Analysis
The task analysis breaks closing a mobile work order into steps and asks which are difficult. Ride-alongs found eleven steps, from selecting the order to submitting it. Most are simple and were done correctly. Three were done inconsistently: recording the asset ID, which on older hydrants and valves is stamped in a hard-to-find place; choosing pipe material from a drop-down list with fourteen options, several with similar names; and attaching photos, which fails when the camera app crashes on older tablets.
Table 1
Steps in Closing a Mobile Work Order Done Inconsistently
| Step | What the record shows | What the ride-alongs show | Likely cause | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Record asset ID | Blank or wrong in about 22 percent of hydrant and valve orders | Technicians unsure where IDs are on older assets | Knowledge | |
| Select pipe material | Blank or "other" in about 18 percent of main repair orders | Similar names in the list; no reference guide | Knowledge and tool design | |
| Attach completion photo | Missing in about 27 percent of orders | Camera app crashes on older tablets | Tool | |
Composite utility. Percentages are illustrative from three months of records.
Person Analysis
The person analysis asks who has the gap. Asset ID and pipe material errors were concentrated among technicians with under three years at Mill Creek and among meter service technicians who rarely work on mains or valves but are sometimes assigned such orders. Senior hydrant and valve technicians recorded asset IDs correctly almost every time. The interviews matched the records: newer technicians said they had never been shown where IDs are stamped on older equipment.
Limits of the Evidence
The ride-alongs covered two days per crew type, which may have missed problems that appear only in winter or during emergencies. Interviews reached 18 of about 120 technicians. The work-order records are the strongest evidence, since they cover every order for three months, but they show what was entered, not why. The conclusions should be revisited after the first training wave.
What the Assessment Supports
The assessment supports training, but much narrower training than requested. It supports a short program on recording asset IDs and selecting pipe materials, aimed at technicians with under three years' service and at meter technicians who take valve and main orders. That is about 45 technicians, not 120. It does not support training on photos, syncing or the basics of the tablet, which most technicians handle well. And it identifies three conditions to fix before or alongside training: signal coverage, supervisors' acceptance of paper and the lack of feedback on why the data matter. Arthur et al. (2003), in a meta-analysis, found that training effectiveness depended heavily on whether a needs assessment was done and on matching training to the skills required; this assessment is the step that makes the narrower program possible.
References
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234
Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Wadsworth.
McGehee, W., & Thayer, P. W. (1961). Training in business and industry. Wiley.
MSHR 6625 Week 2 instructions, in plain terms
Week 2 asks you to test a training request through a structured needs assessment. Use organization, task and person analysis, and gather different evidence for each, such as records, observation and interviews, rather than relying on the requester's account. Report what each level shows, including findings that argue against training. Break the task into steps and identify which are done inconsistently and why. Identify who has the gap and who does not. State the limits of your evidence. Close with what the assessment supports, which may be narrower than the original request, and name the conditions that must change alongside any training for the program to work.
How this MSHR 6625 Week 2 example is built
The assessment opens by framing the request as a hypothesis and introducing the three levels, citing McGehee and Thayer and Goldstein and Ford. A method section lists records, ride-alongs and interviews. The organization analysis finds signal gaps, paper sign-offs and missing feedback. The task analysis identifies eleven steps, with a table of three done inconsistently and their likely causes. The person analysis locates the gap among newer and meter technicians. A limits section notes the sample sizes. A closing section supports a narrow program for about 45 technicians and three non-training fixes, citing Arthur and colleagues. Because each level draws on a separate source, the origin of every finding stays visible.
MSHR 6625 Week 2 rubric: what earns full marks
Needs assessments earn credit for evidence and for willingness to narrow the request. Using all three levels of analysis, each with its own evidence, is weighted heavily. Findings that argue against training, reported honestly, show integrity. A task breakdown that identifies which steps are actually difficult shows rigor. Person analysis that locates the gap in specific groups allows a targeted program. Stating limits of the evidence shows care. A conclusion narrower than the original request, with conditions that must change, demonstrates professional judgment. Assessments that rely on the manager's account, skip the organization level or confirm the request without testing it tend to receive lower marks from course faculty. Marks also reward assessments that end narrower than they began, since that shows the request was really tested.
MSHR 6625 Week 2 help: mistakes that cost marks
Collect at least two kinds of evidence beyond what the requester told you: records of the work, observation of people doing it and short conversations with them. Use each for a different level of analysis. For the organization level, ask what in the setting helps or hinders. For the task level, break the job into steps and find the ones that go wrong. For the person level, ask who struggles and who does not. Students often skip the organization level and miss problems training cannot fix. Others gather evidence that only confirms the request. Report findings that point away from training. If you need help designing short interview questions, our writers can draft a set for your setting.
Get a MSHR 6625 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Upload the needs assessment instructions and rubric along with any case figures the section provides; without data, sample records stand in, labeled as such. The three-level assessment returns inside 24 to 48 hours, and the first sample is free. No real crew's work orders are used.
More MSHR 6625 papers and MS in Human Resource Management samples
- MSHR 6625 Week 1: Training Need Discussion Post
- MSHR 6625 Week 3: Performance Gap Memo
- MSHR 6625 Week 4: Learning Objectives Set
- MSHR 6625 Week 5: Training Design Brief
- MSHR 6625 Week 6: Training Facilitator Guide
- MSHR 6625 Week 7: Training Alignment Peer Replies
- MSHR 6625 Week 8: Training Evaluation Plan
- MSHR 6625 Week 9: Training Transfer Memo
- MSHR 6625 Week 10: Training Pilot Review
- MSHR 6625 Week 11: Training Program Proposal
- MHRM 6101 Week 2: HR Function Role Brief
- MSHR 6610 Week 2: Service Request Workflow Map
- MHRM 6902 Week 2: Portfolio Evidence Plan
- MHRM 6601 Week 2: Point-Factor Job Evaluation
MSHR 6625 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MSHR 6625 Week 2 sample paper?
The full three-level needs assessment can be read below at no charge.
What request does the MSHR 6625 Week 2 assessment test?
A field operations manager's request for tablet training for all field technicians.
What evidence does it use?
Work-order records, ride-alongs with three crew types and interviews with technicians and supervisors.
What does the organization analysis find?
Poor signal coverage, paper ticket sign-offs and no feedback on why asset data matter.
What does the assessment support?
A narrow program for about 45 technicians on asset IDs and pipe materials, plus three non-training fixes.