AI Prompts for Learning and Development Plans

Development plans fail when they are lists of courses. Learning that changes what someone can do is mostly on-the-job (stretch work, new scope), partly through others (coaching, feedback, mentoring), and a small part formal (courses, reading). A useful plan starts from a specific gap between what the role or the next role needs and what the person can do today, chooses experiences that close it, and defines what 'closed' would look like.

These prompts build individual plans from gaps, plan team learning around business needs, and evaluate the effect. They use the competency framework where one exists; the framework page builds one.

Before you use these

Have these ready to replace the highlighted [variables]:

• The person's current role and the capabilities it needs, and the next role if relevant
• An honest picture of current capability (self-assessment, manager view, feedback)
• Learning resources and experiences available (projects, mentors, courses, budget)
• The business's capability needs for the next year

The prompts

• 1. Build an individual development plan from a skills gap
• 2. Design a team learning plan around business needs
• 3. Evaluate whether learning changed anything

1. Build an individual development plan from a skills gap

Act as a learning and development partner building an individual development plan for [person, role, level] for [period].

Role capabilities (current and next role if relevant): [with the level required]
Current capability: [self-assessment, manager view, feedback — with examples]
Available experiences: [projects, stretch assignments, mentors, coaching, courses, budget]

1. Gaps: the differences between required and current capability, with the evidence; prioritize by impact on the role and the person's goals; choose two or three.
2. For each gap: on-the-job experiences (the largest part — specific assignments or scope with a named sponsor), learning through others (coaching, mentoring, shadowing, feedback loops), and formal learning (only where it accelerates the other two).
3. Evidence of closure: what the person will be able to do, observed by whom, in what situation — not course completion.
4. Timeline and sequencing; the support the manager commits.
5. Risks: workload, sponsor availability, learning without application — and the mitigation.
6. Review points and what is checked at each.

Prefer fewer gaps closed to many gaps listed. Courses without an application are not development actions.

2. Design a team learning plan around business needs

You are designing a team learning plan for [team / function] to support [business priorities] over [period].

Priorities and what they require: [capabilities the work will need]
Team capability today: [by capability: how many people at what level]
Options and constraints: [hiring plan, partner/vendor options, budget, time available for learning]

1. Capability shifts: for each priority, the capability the team must have, the level and the number of people, versus today; the gap.
2. Build / hire / partner decision per capability with reasoning (time available, scarcity, strategic importance).
3. For build items: the learning design — who learns, in what cohort, the practice and application built in (real work, projects, peer teaching), the formal component if any, the duration, the expert support.
4. Sequencing against the business calendar; the capacity cost of learning time.
5. Owners, budget, and the measures: capability assessments before and after, application evidence, business outcomes the capability was meant to enable.
6. Risks: learning that is not applied, key people overloaded as teachers, the priority changing.

Design for application in real work. A plan that is mostly courses will not move capability.

3. Evaluate whether learning changed anything

Act as a learning analytics partner evaluating [program] for [team / company].

Objectives: [the capability or behavior it was meant to build; the business outcome it was meant to enable]
Data: [attendance and satisfaction; assessments before/after; manager observations; behavior indicators; outcome metrics; a comparison group if any]

1. Reaction and learning: what the data says, and why it is weak evidence of effect.
2. Behavior: what changed in what people do, from manager observations and indicators, with the evidence and its limits (self-report, small samples, time since program).
3. Results: whether the business outcome moved, and how much of that can plausibly be attributed to the program given other changes and the comparison, if any. Be explicit about what cannot be claimed.
4. Cost per capability gained, with the assumptions.
5. What worked and for whom; what did not; the design elements to keep or change (application, spacing, manager involvement).
6. Recommendation: continue, redesign or stop — and the evaluation to build into the next round so the question can be answered better.

Do not over-claim causation. State clearly what the evidence supports.

Related prompts

• Competency Frameworks
• Career Pathways and Ladders
• Manager Coaching
• Performance Objectives and Goal Setting
• Workforce Planning
• Talent Reviews
• Learning & Tutoring prompts

Logical next step

After this, most HR teams move on to Competency Frameworks.

All Human Resources prompts · Search the full library