Employers rarely articulate specific training needs; more often, they express a need for vague skills like critical thinking and communication. When they are specific, company leaders might articulate the same key business program in vastly different ways: a technology officer might advocate for increased IT investment, while an HR officer would shift focus to deficiencies in corporate culture. Misidentified employer problems lead to poor program design and low employee engagement, decreasing the likelihood of repeat engagements.
Adult and professional education custom and contract training proposals are typically constructed after a university’s initial interaction with an individual corporate executive. This reactive approach is problematic for two reasons:
This resource is part of the Identify High-Potential Employer Partners and Plan Your Pitch Roadmap. Access the Roadmap for stepwise guidance with additional tools and research.
1. Role-based bias and organizational silos typically prevent the HR representative in charge of liaising with the university from accurately describing the training need
2. Waiting until after the first in-person interaction has occurred to create a proposal does not leave time for a COE unit to create a nuanced proposal, resulting in stalled approval processes
By proactively offering assessment services, universities can demonstrate tailored customer insight in the negotiation process and design a proposal that appeals to multiple influencers within the organization. University of California, Irvine’s standardized needs-assessment helps the primary purchaser navigate internal silos while also gathering information pertinent to program…