A few months ago, I decided to remodel my master closet. What started as a simple cosmetic project took an unexpected turn when I discovered a small patch of mold behind one section of drywall. I wanted to keep the project moving, so I cleaned the area, primed it, and started painting. Two coats of paint quickly turned into five because the stain kept peeking through. Since I had already planned to wallpaper the wall, I eventually moved forward, knowing there was a good chance the stain would eventually work its way through the wallpaper as well.
Today, the closet looks exactly the way I imagined. Beautiful wallpaper and a custom closet system hide that section of the wall completely. I can’t see the stain anymore, but every now and then I wonder if it’s still there beneath the surface.
That project came to mind as I worked through this week’s module because organizations can make the same mistake. It’s tempting to move quickly toward a solution, but if we never identify the real problem, we risk building an impressive solution over something that was never fully addressed.
That was exactly the situation at Bitloom Technologies.
Leadership received client complaints about slow response times and poor service quality, concluded that customer service representatives needed communication skills training, and asked me, as the Lead Learning Designer, to build the course. Before this module, I probably would have accepted that request at face value and started designing. Instead, this week’s learning challenged me to pause and ask a much more important question:
Is a lack of communication skills actually causing the performance problem?
As Brett Christensen explains, clients often come to us “solution oriented,” believing they’ve already identified the fix. Our responsibility is to remain “solution neutral” and determine whether the requested intervention actually addresses the performance gap.
A Training Request Is Not a Diagnosis
One of the biggest takeaways from this module was not that needs assessment and needs analysis are different, but that I now have clearer language for explaining that difference. I understood that identifying a problem and analyzing its cause were separate steps, but the readings helped me see why that distinction matters in practice.
Stefaniak (2020) explains that a needs assessment determines whether a performance gap actually exists, while a needs analysis investigates its root causes. McGoldrick and Tobey (2016) similarly describe needs assessment as a diagnostic process rather than a confirmation exercise. Christensen reinforces this sequence by reminding us to assess before we analyze so we don’t spend time solving the wrong problem.
Bitloom’s leadership skipped much of that process. They observed client complaints, assumed poor communication skills were the cause, and prescribed training in a single step. My responsibility is not to reject their request. It’s to determine whether it’s actually the right solution before recommending it.
What the Evidence Actually Suggests
As I gathered information from customer service managers and help-desk technicians, a much more complicated picture emerged. Team members described frequent system outages during peak hours, software slowdowns, and occasional crashes that interrupted work in the middle of customer interactions. Several employees also shared that the customer service platform could no longer keep up with the volume of support tickets. On top of that, the department was understaffed, leaving employees to cover responsibilities that would normally be shared among multiple people.
These findings point to environmental and organizational barriers rather than immediate skill deficits. Even exceptional communication skills cannot overcome system crashes, outdated technology, or chronic understaffing. Christensen shared a similar example of an RCMP dispatch center where observation revealed that environmental issues, not employee skills, were driving the performance problem.
That doesn’t mean communication training has no place. Client complaints mention poor service quality in addition to delayed response times, so it’s possible employees working under constant pressure struggle to communicate clearly or manage frustrated customers effectively. If the evidence ultimately supports that conclusion, communication training could absolutely become part of the solution. It simply shouldn’t be expected to compensate for organizational problems employees cannot control.
The Data I Still Need
Before recommending any intervention, I would gather evidence from multiple sources, following Stefaniak’s (2020) recommendation to triangulate data rather than rely on a single perspective.
I would review system logs, ticket response data, staffing patterns, workload distribution, customer complaints, and existing job aids. I would also observe representatives during live interactions and interview employees, supervisors, IT staff, and customers. Together, these data sources would help determine whether the performance gap stems from skill deficits, organizational barriers, or both while establishing a baseline for evaluating future interventions.
Bringing Findings Back to Leadership
Gathering the evidence is only half the job. Communicating findings that differ from leadership’s expectations is just as important.
Rather than rejecting leadership’s request, I would frame my findings as a way to protect the organization’s investment. I would validate their concerns and then present evidence showing why training alone may not resolve the problem. Kaufman’s warning, shared by Christensen, resonates here: organizations often skip analysis because they’re eager to act, only to spend more time correcting ineffective solutions later. Based on the evidence, I would recommend addressing technology and staffing barriers first, followed by targeted communication coaching if the data demonstrates a genuine skill gap.
Diagnosing Before Designing
This week’s learning changed how I think about the role of a learning designer. I used to think our value came from creating engaging learning experiences. Now I see that one of our greatest contributions is helping organizations slow down long enough to solve the right problem before investing in a solution.
Ultimately, learning designers are not hired simply to create courses. We are hired to improve performance, and sometimes that improvement comes through instruction. Other times it requires changes to systems, staffing, workflows, or technology.
When I look at my finished closet today, I still think about the wall hidden behind the custom organizer. On the surface, the project looks complete, but I know there’s a difference between covering a problem and solving one. Bitloom reminded me that organizations can fall into that same trap. Before we build the training, implement the solution, or celebrate the finished product, we need to be confident we’ve uncovered what’s really behind the wall.