| Course | HR410 Talent Development and Learning |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Needs assessment |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HR410 Unit 2
Three Analyses and One Learning Need: A Unit 2 Needs Assessment for Other-Coverage Updates
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HR410: Talent Development and Learning
Unit 2 Needs Assessment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Ridgemont Health Plan, its staff and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
The Request and the Question
When a member tells Ridgemont Health Plan about other insurance, such as a spouse's employer plan or Medicare, a representative records the coverage and which plan pays first. That other-coverage update, known in the industry as coordination of benefits, decides how claims are paid. After the membership system was upgraded in the spring, errors in these updates rose, and the operations director asked for retraining on the new system.
Goldstein and Ford (2002) describe needs assessment as three linked analyses: of the organization, of the tasks and of the people. This assessment follows that structure.
Organizational Analysis
Consequences. Complaints to the state insurance department about claims paid in the wrong order rose from about 6 a quarter before the upgrade to 17 in the quarter after.
The rollout. The upgrade was supported by one ninety-minute online module, completed by all representatives the week before go-live. It showed the new screens but included no practice.
Measures. Team leads are scored on average handle time. Other-coverage updates now take about eleven minutes, against a six-minute target, so leads have reason to push representatives to finish them quickly.
Task Analysis
The update was broken into twelve steps, from verifying the member's identity to telling the member what happens to past claims. The upgrade changed three of them.
Step 5, the coverage-period screen. The old system took one effective date. The new screen splits the month when other coverage starts mid-month and asks for two periods.
Step 7, the reason code. The list was reorganized from 14 codes into 22 under four headings, and two familiar codes were renamed.
Step 10, the approval threshold. Updates that reach back more than ninety days, and so trigger reprocessing of older claims, now go to a senior representative for approval.
Person Analysis
The quality team audited 600 updates from the three months after the upgrade. Errors were concentrated in two groups.
Representatives hired after the upgrade made errors on 8.4 percent of updates, mostly on steps 5, 7 and 10.
Tenured representatives made errors on 3.0 percent overall, but on Mondays, the heaviest call day, their rate rose to 5.6 percent. Across all representatives the audited rate was 3.9 errors per hundred updates. Their errors were mostly on step 5, where the new screen fills in the old single date by default unless the representative changes it.
The recent hires do not know the changed steps, while the tenured staff know them but skip them when the queue is long and the screen suggests the old answer.
How the Evidence Was Gathered
The organizational evidence came from the complaint log kept by the compliance team, the learning system's completion records for the rollout module and the team leads' scorecards for the last two quarters. The task analysis was built by observing four representatives completing live updates and walking through the procedure with two senior representatives, who confirmed the twelve steps and identified which ones the upgrade changed. The person analysis used the quality team's regular audit sample, extended to 600 updates so that each group and day of the week had enough cases to compare. No representative was identified in the audit results shared with training.
What the Request Got Right and Wrong
The operations director was right that something changed with the new system and that representatives were making more errors. The request was wrong in two ways. It assumed everyone needed the same retraining, when the audit shows two groups with different problems. And it assumed the problem was knowledge of the system, when for tenured staff the system itself, and the way their leads are scored, explain most of the errors.
Synthesis
Finding 1. Recent hires lack skill on steps 5, 7 and 10. Evidence: audit error pattern. Learning need: yes. Owner: training.
Finding 2. Handle-time scoring pressures speed on a long procedure. Evidence: leads' scorecards and Monday error rates. Learning need: no. Owner: member services operations.
Finding 3. The coverage-period screen defaults to a single date. Evidence: tenured errors on step 5. Learning need: no. Owner: the membership systems team.
Salas et al. (2012) argue that training should follow a needs analysis that separates skill gaps from other causes, and Arthur et al. (2003) found that the effectiveness of training depends on matching its design to the skill and outcome it targets. A program for all 140 representatives would spend most of its time on people who already know the steps.
Recommendation
Build a practice-based program on steps 5, 7 and 10 for the 23 representatives hired since the upgrade. Ask operations to review the handle-time target for other-coverage updates, and ask the systems team to remove the default date. Confirm the skill finding with a performance test before design begins.
References
Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., 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.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661
Reading the HR 410 Unit 2 instructions
For the second HR410 assignment, a training request becomes the starting point of a needs assessment. Restate the request and the performance question it raises. Then analyze three levels. At the organizational level, look at consequences, how the change was rolled out and any measures that shape behavior. At the task level, break the work into steps and identify which ones changed. At the person level, use performance data to find who makes errors and when. Explain how the evidence was gathered. Say what the original request got right and wrong. Build a synthesis that lists each finding, its evidence, whether it is a learning need and who owns it. Hand non-training findings to their owners. Recommend the next step. Cite needs assessment research. About six pages, organized as three analyses and a synthesis, is the usual length.
Inside the HR410 Unit 2 example
The sample explains other-coverage updates and cites Goldstein and Ford's three analyses. The organizational section reports rising complaints, a ninety-minute rollout module and handle-time scoring, with a margin note on pressures. The task section identifies three changed steps among twelve. The person section reports error rates of 8.4 percent for recent hires and 3.0 for tenured staff, rising to 5.6 on Mondays, and the highlighted sentence contrasts the two groups. Sections explain how evidence was gathered and what the request got right and wrong. A synthesis assigns three findings to training, operations and the systems team, with Salas and colleagues and Arthur and colleagues supporting a narrow program for 23 recent hires.
HR410 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
Points in the HR410 needs assessment go to evidence at each level and honest synthesis. The organizational analysis should look for pressures and consequences, not only training history. The task analysis should identify specific steps affected. The person analysis earns credit when it uses data to find which groups struggle and under what conditions. Describing how evidence was gathered shows method. The synthesis is weighted heavily: each finding needs evidence, a judgment about whether it is a learning need and an owner. Handing non-training findings to others shows judgment. A recommendation tied to the evidence completes the work, and needs assessment research should be cited in APA 7.
Common HR410 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many HR410 needs assessments accept the request and design training for everyone affected. Others analyze only the people, missing scorecards and screens that drive errors. Students often describe tasks without identifying which steps changed. Performance data are summarized as one rate, hiding the difference between groups. Findings that are not training needs are dropped rather than handed to someone. Analyze all three levels, find the changed steps, split error data by group and condition, explain your sources, build a synthesis with owners and recommend a narrow next step. Bring your audit data, and our team can help organize the three analyses.
Get an HR410 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Needs assessments stand or fall on evidence, so any data in the case helps; include it with the Unit 2 instructions and the rubric. Three levels, with sources named at each, come back inside 24-48h. First requests are free, and whatever figures get added to fill gaps are bracketed for replacement. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HR410 papers and BS in Business Administration (Human Resources) samples
- HR410 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- HR410 Unit 3: Performance Gap Analysis
- HR410 Unit 4: Learning Objectives Set
- HR410 Unit 5: Program Design Outline
- HR410 Unit 6: Delivery Method Comparison
- HR410 Unit 7: Transfer of Training Plan
- HR410 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- HR410 Unit 9: Evaluation Design
- HR410 Unit 10: Development Strategy Report
- HR400 Unit 2: Job Analysis
HR410 Unit 2 questions, answered
Why start with the organizational level?
Because it sets the conditions for everything else. A task can be taught perfectly and still go undone if scorecards punish the time it takes. The example finds the handle-time scorecard at the organizational level, which later explains why tenured representatives err on busy days. Starting with individuals would have missed that.
Where can I find a free HR410 Unit 2 sample paper?
A complete HR410 Unit 2 needs assessment is on this page, breaking a retraining request at a health plan into three analyses and one learning need.
Why look at how team leads are scored?
Scorecards shape what people do. If leads are measured on speed, they may push representatives to rush a long procedure, which creates errors training cannot fix.
What happens to findings that are not training needs?
The assessment names an owner for each, such as operations for a scorecard or a systems team for a screen, so the cause is fixed by the people who control it.
Why split error rates by group?
A single rate can hide two problems. Here recent hires lacked skill while tenured staff slipped under pressure, and each needed a different remedy.