A gap analysis is a useful tool for determining what steps need to be taken in order to move from a current state to a desired future state. By identifying gaps between current performance or outcomes and desired future performance or outcomes, priorities for improvement become clearer. This allows an organisation to allocate resources effectively to close the most important gaps. However, there are some common mistakes that can reduce the effectiveness of a gap analysis. Here are some key pitfalls to avoid when conducting a gap analysis.
Not Getting Stakeholder Buy-In
A gap analysis requires input from various stakeholders in an organisation. However, sometimes a gap analysis is conducted by only a small team without getting broader input or buy-in. Even if using a solid gap analysis template, without getting stakeholder perspectives from different parts of the organisation, the gap analysis risks either missing key gaps or identifying ‘gaps’ that are not actually seen as problematic by most stakeholders. Getting input helps create better understanding of the reasons behind gaps and ways to address them.
Focusing Only on Gaps, Not Current Strengths
A gap analysis should look at both strengths and gaps – current performance versus desired future performance. An excessive focus on gaps, without also identifying current strengths, can result in frustration, resistance, or a biased negative perspective from stakeholders. Identifying strengths provides a balanced perspective and an understanding of components that are already working well. This information can be leveraged when developing solutions.
Not Prioritising the Gaps
Typically, a gap analysis will identify multiple gaps between current and desired performance. However, not all gaps are equally important to address. To use resources effectively, the most critical gaps – those that will make the biggest difference toward achieving the desired goal – should be prioritised. Less critical gaps can be addressed later. Failing to prioritise gaps can result in scattering efforts too widely instead of focusing on the changes that matter most.
Lack of Data and Evidence
A gap analysis requires data and evidence to quantify current versus desired performance. Gaps identified on perception alone can be misleading. Hard data provides objectivity and insight. For example, survey data, sales figures, customer satisfaction scores, process efficiency metrics, and other quantitative data make gaps more definable. Without data, it’s impossible to accurately measure gaps or track progress toward closing them.
Not Translating into Action Plans
Simply identifying gaps is not sufficient. Once priority gaps are identified, specific action plans need to be developed to close them. This includes defining exactly what will be done, who will do it, timelines for completion, resources required, and metrics for tracking progress. Without action plans, a gap analysis alone will not drive improvement. The analysis informs suitable actions to take but doesn’t specify the actions themselves.
Trying to Close All Gaps at Once
Real change takes time. It’s usually not possible – or advisable – to tackle every identified gap at the same time. This could spread resources too thin. It’s important to break the change strategy down into phases, closing the most critical gaps first. Less important gaps can be addressed later as progress is made. Trying to do too much at once increases chances of change fatigue and project failure.
Failure to Communicate Findings
Stakeholders who provided input into the gap analysis need to be informed of the findings, priorities, and action plans. Communication helps maintain engagement in the change process and addresses any misunderstandings about the rationale behind the improvement strategy. Failure to communicate and get continued buy-in on next steps can jeopardise successful implementation.
Lack of Accountability
Accountability through regular progress reviews helps sustain focus on closing gaps according to the action plans. When individual leaders and teams are held accountable for making progress on assigned gaps, there is a greater likelihood that those gaps will successfully close. Lack of accountability risks allowing other priorities to continually take precedence over gap-closure efforts.
Not Tracking Progress Over Time
Progress toward closing prioritised gaps should be tracked on an ongoing basis through agreed-upon metrics. Periodic evaluation enables adjustment of action plans as needed. Without monitoring metrics aligned to gaps, there’s no way to know if the gaps are truly closing until a follow-up analysis much later. By then, critical time may have been lost.
A well-executed gap analysis is invaluable for clarifying exactly which areas need focus for an organisation to reach a desired future state. Avoiding these common missteps helps ensure the analysis delivers maximum value. With these best practices in place, a gap analysis can steer productive and effective organisational improvements.
