Skip to content
allanninal.dev/build
Collaborate

Part 5 of 7 · Training reminder bot series ~5 min read

How the training gap reads

The obvious report is a list of overdue training with names against it. It is easy to produce, it feels like accountability, and it consistently produces the wrong action — because almost every training gap in a small business is a scheduling problem wearing an individual’s name.

Key takeaways

  • Sorted by requirement first, not by person. The gap is usually one course, not one employee.
  • The number that matters is people-days of exposure, not a count of overdue items.
  • A person appearing across many requirements is the one case worth naming, and it is rare.
  • Not-required items are shown separately so a drop in the gap is always explainable.
  • Weekly, because a training gap that is three weeks old was avoidable at one week.

By requirement, not by person

This week’s gap

  • Abrasive wheels — 6 people, oldest 23 days. Next course 14 August. All six are waiting on the same date.
  • Manual handling — 2 people, oldest 9 days. Delivered in house; needs a session booking.
  • Site induction — 1 person, 2 days. New starter at Ashford, due immediately.
  • Expiring within 30 days — 4 people, 3 requirements. None assigned yet because they are inside their lead time.
  • Not-required this week: 11 items, because forklift refresher was dropped from the warehouse role on the 4th.

Reading that, the action is obvious and it is not about any individual: book an abrasive wheels course, book a manual handling session, and do the induction today. Six people waiting on one external course date is a procurement task, and no amount of chasing six individuals will move it.

The number that matters

How the training gap is measured as people-days of exposureA vertical chain of four steps entered by a box labelled Outstanding assignments, with due dates. Step one computes days overdue for each rather than a count of items. Step two weights by requirement, since an induction is not a refresher, using a criticality field on the requirements. Step three produces people-days of exposure as one number. Step four trends it weekly, watching direction rather than level. A note says eleven items one day overdue is nothing, and one induction three weeks overdue is not.AWS ACCOUNTOutstanding assignmentswith due datesDays overdue eachnot a count of itemsWeight by requirementinduction != refresherRequirementsa criticality fieldPeople-days of exposureone numberTrend it weeklydirection, not levelEleven items one day overdue is nothing. One induction three weeks overdue is not.
Fig 1. How the gap is measured. Counting overdue items treats a three-week-old site induction as equivalent to a refresher that became due yesterday, and they are not remotely equivalent.

People-days of exposure is a single number that behaves sensibly: it rises quickly when something critical is overdue, it barely moves for a batch of refreshers that became due this morning, and it falls to zero when the gap closes. A count of overdue items does none of those things.

The one time a person is named

A person appearing across four or more requirements is the single case where naming an individual is the right response, and it is rare. It almost never means somebody is avoiding training; it usually means they joined during a busy month, or changed role and nobody ran an induction, or work a shift pattern that has never coincided with a course.

So the report names them once, at the bottom, phrased as a question about circumstances rather than compliance: “J. Reed has four outstanding — nights at Ashford since April, no sessions have run on that shift.” That sentence produces a different conversation from a red row on a list.

Explaining a drop

The not-required line exists because a gap that improves for the wrong reason is worse than a gap that does not improve. Eleven items disappearing because a requirement was dropped looks identical, on a chart, to eleven people completing their training.

Why a fall in the training gap is always explainedA horizontal row of five boxes. Gap falls: by eleven items. Why: two possible reasons. Completed: which is good. Not-required: which is a decision rather than progress. Report says which: always. A note says a chart that improves for two different reasons is a chart nobody should trust.WHY THE GAP CHANGEDGap fallsby 11 itemsWhy?two possible reasonsCompletedgoodNot-requireda decision, not progressReport says whichalwaysA chart that improves for two different reasons is a chart nobody should trust.
Fig 2. Why every change in the gap is attributed. Improvement by decision and improvement by completion look identical on a chart and mean completely different things.
  • App integration
  • Machine learning
  • Security & identity
  • Analytics

Why weekly

Because the actions the report produces — book a course, run a session, do an induction — take about a week to arrange, and a gap noticed at one week is closed at three. A monthly report notices the same gap at four weeks and closes it at seven, which is a month of exposure for no reason at all.

Next: what all of this costs to run.

All posts