My Approach


Most learning programs are built backwards — someone decides what training is needed, and then the L&D team builds it. I work the other direction. I start by understanding the business problem, the performance gap, and the root cause. Only then do I design a solution — and training is often one part of it, not all of it. Three frameworks make that possible in practice.

Philosophy

Most diagnostic work stops at what’s visible. A completion rate, a certification score, a go-live date hit on time. Those are the floor. They tell you something happened. They don’t tell you whether the right thing happened, or whether it will hold once the project team leaves the room.

The real diagnostic work happens underneath that. It’s the gap between what a dashboard shows and what’s actually true on the ground, between a training completed and a capability built. That gap is where I spend most of my time, and it’s what the three frameworks below are built to close.


Framework 1: Six Sigma - The Diagnostic Layer

Before I design anything, I use DMAIC — Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control — as a structured diagnostic. It's the same framework Six Sigma practitioners use for process improvement, and it works equally well for performance problems. Define: What is the actual business problem — not the symptom someone called 'a training need'? Measure: What does the data say about the gap? Error rates, time-to-proficiency, compliance failures? Analyze: What's actually causing it? Knowledge gap, skill gap, process flaw, system issue, incentive misalignment? Improve: What intervention — or combination — will move the needle? Control: How do we know it worked three months, six months, twelve months later?

The Analyze step is where most organizations short-circuit. They go straight to training. I don't — and that's often where the most value is created.

Framework 2: Malcolm Knowles' Andragogy - The Design Layer

Once I know what the problem is, I design for how adults actually learn — not how training departments traditionally build content. Malcolm Knowles' six principles of adult learning shape every design decision I make: Self-Concept: Adults are self-directed. Give them agency, not just content delivery. Prior Experience: They already know things. Build on it — don't ignore it. Readiness to Learn: Adults engage when content is immediately relevant to their role and context. Problem Orientation: Frame learning around real problems, not subject-matter coverage. Intrinsic Motivation: Internal drive outperforms compliance-based mandates. Connect to meaningful outcomes. Need to Know: Adults require a clear 'why' before they'll invest in the 'how.' Start there — always.

In practice, this means I open with business context (not objectives), design around scenarios (not slides), and build for on-the-job transfer (not assessment completion).

Framework 3: ADDIE - The Execution Layer

ADDIE — Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate — provides the development lifecycle that keeps everything else disciplined and auditable. Where DMAIC provides the diagnostic and Knowles shapes the design, ADDIE ensures the build process is rigorous, stakeholder-reviewed, and tied to measurable outcomes. I use Kirkpatrick Levels 3 and 4 to close the evaluation loop — behavior change and business impact, not just completion rates and satisfaction scores.

Every engagement I lead produces a documented curriculum framework, role-based learning paths, SME validation records, and a reinforcement plan. Not because it's process for its own sake — because it's what turns a learning event into a capability shift.


INTEGRATION TABLE — How the Three Frameworks Map

DMAIC Phase DMAIC Question ADDIE Phase Knowles Principle
DEFINE What's the real business problem? Analysis — needs & context Self-Concept: involve learners in framing
MEASURE How significant is the gap? Analysis — task & audience data Experience: baseline existing knowledge
ANALYZE What's actually causing it? Design — align objectives to root causes Readiness to Learn: right topic, right time
IMPROVE What intervention fits best? Development & Implementation Problem orientation + intrinsic motivation
CONTROL How do we sustain results? Evaluation — Kirkpatrick Levels 3 & 4 Self-direction: learner owns the transfer


If you're evaluating an L&D partner for a complex initiative — an ERP rollout, a safety culture program, a workforce transformation — the question isn't 'can they build training? ' The question is 'can they figure out what the problem actually is?'

That's where I start.