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.
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: Matthew 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 |