Built to the Problem, Not the Request
Most performance problems arrive in L&D with the solution already decided: build a course. But a knowledge gap, a motivation gap, and a process gap are three different problems — and training can only mitigate one of them. Every engagement I take begins by separating what was requested from what's actually needed.
What follows is the process behind that work: a structured, four-phase approach grounded in the Instructional Design Project Operations Manual, the operating standard I bring to every engagement. Where a project enters that process depends on what you're bringing to it — so this page starts with you.
Start Where You Are
Three Ways an Engagement Begins
Most clients and hiring teams approach me with one of three situations. Each enters the same process at a different point — and each is met with the same standard of rigor.
You have a performance problem
Something isn't working — productivity is down, errors are up, or a process isn't translating into consistent results across your team. The cause isn't always clear, and the solution isn't always training. I start here: diagnosing what's actually driving the gap before anything gets designed or built.
You have a training request
Someone in your organization has identified a knowledge or skill gap, and the decision has already been made to address it with training. I can work within that scope — designing and developing learning experiences that are structured, measurable, and built to produce more than completion rates.
You have a project ready to build
The analysis is done, the objectives are set, and you need a skilled practitioner to execute. Whether your team is at capacity or the project requires a specialist, I bring the same standard to contract work as I do to full engagements — organized, communicative, and accountable to the brief.
The Engagement Process
Four Phases, One Standard
The Instructional Design Project Operations Manual organizes every engagement into four phases — from first conversation through post-launch evaluation. No phase is skipped; depending on where your project enters, earlier phases may already be complete.
The engagement opens by establishing the relationship, clarifying expectations, and separating the stated request from the underlying problem. A structured intake captures scope, constraints, and stakeholders before any solution is proposed.
A needs analysis then brings everyone into alignment on the actual gap. What it surfaces often goes deeper than a curriculum can reach — sometimes pointing to incentive structures, resource accessibility, or operational logic rather than a knowledge deficit. This phase determines whether training is even the right intervention.
With the gap confirmed and training established as the right response, the instructional strategy is developed, proposed, and approved. This is where the structure of the solution is set — objectives, sequence, assessment approach, and the standard against which success will be measured.
Design work proceeds in collaboration with subject-matter experts so content integrity is established before any development begins. Every design decision traces back to a documented objective rather than to assumption or convention.
The solution is built, then reviewed iteratively — first by subject-matter experts for accuracy, then by stakeholders for alignment — and quality-assured before it goes live. Blended, web-based, and instructor-led components are produced to the specifications set in the design phase.
The phase closes when the program is delivered and the people who will facilitate it are prepared to do so. Where a project arrives ready to build, this is the work I execute against your brief.
After launch, the work returns to the benchmark set at the start: did the gap actually close? Performance data — not completion rates — answers that question. The same measurement infrastructure that scored the program during delivery feeds back into its next iteration.
A maintenance plan keeps the program current through incremental updates rather than disruptive overhauls, so the investment holds its value over time. Every engagement, regardless of where it entered, is built to be evaluated.
The Way I'd Want a Specialist to Work With Me
I take the consulting relationship as seriously as a physician takes patient care — because that's the standard I'd hold anyone accountable to on my behalf. Every engagement is organized, transparent, and diagnostic from the first conversation to the final report.
Not sure where your project fits?
That's often the most useful place to start. Tell me about the problem, the audience, and the timeline — and we'll find the right entry point together.
Start the Conversation