› ‹
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Dave Basarab Consulting has elevated the training experience, offering an end-to-end comprehensive approach that includes training strategy, instructional design, development, delivery , post program training transfer, and evaluation (via the unique Predictive Evaluation methodology). Virtual Chief Architect Dave Basarab has combined all of these individual training elements with his user-friendly, comprehensive Learning to Performance approach, which significantly increases companies' training ROI.

Why we are different

  • Innovation: Our primary focus is creating learning programs using a Learning to Performance approach.
  • Expertise: Dave offers the depth and breadth of his experience, including working internally at prestigious companies (Motorola, Ingersoll Rand and Pitney Bowes) as well as his knowledge and expertise as a highly-respected, sought-after consultant.
  • Partnership: Basarab collaborates with companies, serving as their own Chief Learning Officer whenever they need to plan, strategize, or implement training initiatives.

Training Services

Enterprise Learning Strategy

Enterprise Learning Strategy

At Dave Basarab Consulting, we're experts in creating Enterprise Learning Plans. We work with you to develop your company's learning strategy and direction.

More...

Custom Design, Development, & Delivery

Custom Design, Development, & Delivery

Custom training is an effective way of developing the capability required to execute your strategy. We are a custom design house that creates programs specific to your business.

More...

Learning Burst Development

Learning Burst Development

We can create and deliver your courses via our unique Learning Burst Method - keeping your employees at their jobs while receiving world-class training.

More...

Predictive Evaluation

Predictive Evaluation

We predict the ROI for your courses and establish success gates. We then evaluate the course against the success gates to show value realized and continually improve results.

More...

Leadership Development

Leadership Development

Turn-key virtual custom leadership development program that combines world-class leadership speakers/educators with post-event personalized coaching to provide you with a cadre of highly skilled leaders.

More...

Predictive Evaluation

Root Cause Analysis: How to Decide If Training Is the Right Solution

Many Australian organisations still default to training whenever performance drops. A missed KPI in a Brisbane call centre, a safety lapse on a Pilbara mine site, a slow onboarding curve at a Melbourne retail headquarters — the reflex is the same: book a workshop. Yet decades of performance consulting research show that only a portion of workplace problems are actually caused by knowledge or skill gaps. The rest sit elsewhere, in processes, incentives, environment, or motivation, and no amount of facilitation will shift them.

Root cause analysis gives learning and development leaders a way out of that reflex. Instead of jumping straight to a learning solution, teams ask what is really driving the behaviour they are seeing. The discipline originated in manufacturing quality control, but it translates easily into human performance work. It pushes past the visible symptom and asks why it is happening, then why again, until the underlying contributor surfaces. In an Australian context, where skills shortages in trades and aged care are colliding with rapid digital change, that diagnostic step matters more than ever.

This matters because the cost of misdiagnosing a performance problem is high. Wasted learning budgets, frustrated line managers in Sydney CBD offices, and disengaged teams in regional depots all erode the credibility of the learning function. Worse, the original problem remains unsolved, which damages business outcomes the training was supposed to support. A disciplined root cause approach protects the organisation from that cycle and positions learning as a strategic partner rather than a default vendor.

Why Australian Leaders Reach for the Training Reflex

Australian workplaces carry a strong "have a go" culture that values effort and visible action. When something goes wrong, leaders often want to be seen doing something, and a training session is a tangible response. Add in the country's geographically dispersed teams — from Darwin to Hobart — and a centralised learning event can feel like the easiest way to reach everyone at once.

There is also a skills narrative that reinforces the reflex. With persistent shortages in sectors like construction, healthcare, and resources, leaders naturally assume capability is the missing ingredient. Marketing promises "training solutions" without questioning whether capability is actually the cause, and procurement teams inherit the language. Over time, training becomes the default answer regardless of the diagnosis.

Finally, learning and development teams themselves can develop a bias toward designing. Instructional designers love a good build. Without structured inquiry at the front end, that enthusiasm crowds out the harder, quieter work of asking whether learning is even the right intervention.

What Root Cause Analysis Brings to Performance Problems

Root cause analysis is a structured inquiry process. Rather than treating a symptom — say, low adoption of a new rostering system in a Perth depot — it works backward through layers of causation. It separates surface events from underlying contributors and tests each layer against evidence.

In a learning context, the discipline draws on models like the human performance technology framework and behaviour engineering. The aim is to determine whether the gap sits in the people column — knowledge, skill, motivation — or in the environment column, including tools, processes, incentives, and data. Only gaps in the people column are legitimate candidates for training.

The benefit is clarity. Once the real cause is identified, the response becomes obvious. Sometimes it is training. Sometimes it is a job aid, a redesigned workflow, a clearer KPI, or a recognition program. The chosen intervention fits the problem rather than the available solution set.

Comparing Performance Gaps: When Training Helps and When It Doesn't

Performance Symptom Likely Root Cause Training Is the Right Response?
New software rollout is not being used Process redesign missing and ownership unclear No
Customer service scores fall after a product change Knowledge gap in updated product features Yes
Safety incidents rise on a remote site Fatigue, rostering, and supervision issues No
Sales conversion drops in a new market Sales methodology and conversation skills gap Yes
Team morale drops during restructure Communication, recognition, and trust issues No
New starters take months to reach full productivity Onboarding process and informal network gaps Partial

This kind of comparison helps learning leaders in cities like Adelaide, Sydney, and Cairns separate capability problems from every other kind. It also gives line managers a shared language for triaging issues before requesting a learning intervention.

Diagnostic Methods That Go Deeper Than Surface Symptoms

The 5 Whys remains the simplest entry point. Start with the observed problem, ask why five times in sequence, and watch the answer migrate from behaviour to system. For more complex cases, a fishbone diagram lets a small group map multiple categories of cause — process, policy, people, environment — against a single outcome. Both tools work well in short facilitated sessions, even with teams spread across time zones from Perth to the east coast.

A second layer of analysis draws on data. Review performance records, system logs, audit findings, and exit interviews. In regulated Australian industries like financial services and aged care, compliance data often reveals whether the gap is knowledge-based or process-based. Pairing qualitative inquiry with quantitative evidence produces a more reliable diagnosis than opinion alone.

A third approach is the pilot intervention. Before commissioning a full training program, run a small test of the suspected solution. If a short, focused learning burst improves adoption in one location, that signal is strong evidence the gap was genuinely a capability one. You can review sample learning bursts to see how compact, targeted learning can be tested this way.

Signals That Training Is the Right Response

  • New employees consistently struggle because the existing system is sound but unfamiliar to them.
  • Performance dips immediately after a change to tools, products, or regulations that requires fresh knowledge.
  • Skilled workers leave the organisation and the remaining team has not yet built the same capability.
  • Behaviour change requires a specific skill set, such as a coaching conversation or clinical assessment, that cannot be replaced by a job aid.
  • The gap repeats across sites, suggesting a shared learning need rather than a local environment issue.

Signals That Point Away From Training

  • The same knowledge and skills already exist in high performers within the same team.
  • The desired behaviour is blocked by outdated tools, slow systems, or unclear authority.
  • The issue only appears in one location while peers elsewhere perform the same task well.
  • Motivation, conflict, or recognition is the dominant driver of the observed behaviour.
  • The proposed training would address a process problem that should be redesigned first.

When the evidence points away from a learning response, the right move is often to fix the environment before spending on capability. That might mean redesigning a workflow, clarifying an accountability line, or introducing a job aid. Training layered on top of a broken system simply teaches people to work around the problem.

The most reliable way to keep learning credible is to make diagnosis the first conversation. When a manager in a Sydney office raises a performance concern, ask what evidence supports the gap, what has already changed in the environment, and which behaviours the proposed training would actually shift. Those three questions buy time and clarity in equal measure.

The next concrete step is a brief diagnostic conversation with a learning consultant who can map your first three performance problems against the people-versus-environment test and recommend the right response for each.

Learning to Performance

Learning to Performance, a complete training approach, gives companies world-class training to drive significant return. This approach includes upfront work (Impact Mapping, design), training (for staff and company executives), and post-training efforts to ensure training transfer. This unique recipe - the key for successful training and adoption - is changing the way companies implement training. This methodology could work with any content for organizations in any industry.

More...