1. Starting point and outputs
Who benefits
- Training and development directors and government academies
- Program designers, experts, and internal trainers
- Department directors supervising the development of new employees and leaders
What you will produce
- A design document linking the performance gap to learning outcomes and evidence of proficiency
- A pathway map covering prerequisites, modules, and assessment points
- A delivery-ready package with cases, exercises, a trainer guide, and a scoring tool
- A pilot plan, application support, and version updates
Inputs to prepare
- A needs report identifying the group, task, gap, and its causes; a training wish list is insufficient
- Work samples with sensitive data removed, role descriptions, and relevant approved procedures
- Data on participants' current level and their language, time, availability, and technology constraints
- The program sponsor, subject matter expert, learning designer, workplace supervisor, and available resources
2. Working methodology
Start with evidence of proficiency
The Union proposes designing backward from the end: identify the task employees will perform after learning, then the evidence needed for acceptance, then the activities that prepare them for it. An outcome such as preparing a decision memo is better than familiarity with decision-making because it defines a product that can be reviewed. The templates, thresholds, and schedule below are proposed design tools to adapt to the organization, rather than an accreditation standard or a claim of conformity with a specification.
Separate the stages of development
Distinguish learning a common foundation, job-specific specialization, supervised application, and independent practice. Use a pre-assessment to avoid repeating what an employee has already mastered; document any exemption with equivalent evidence rather than seniority alone. Hours are not sufficient evidence of competence, and certificates should be accurately named: attendance, completion, or passing, according to what was actually achieved.
Balance learning quality with delivery feasibility
The principles of setting objectives, interaction, assessment, and follow-up draw general guidance from the official sources at the end of the guide. The module sequence and work templates in this guide are practical proposals. The team should test whether training can be delivered under actual working conditions and should not assume that every employee has a constant connection or full-time availability.
This is an adaptable practical approach developed by the Union with reference to the sources below. Adjust steps, timeframes and measures to the organization and its data. It is not a certificate of compliance or accreditation by the referenced organizations.
3. Implementation steps
1 Confirm the performance problem and program scope
Bring together the owner of the need and learner representatives, and write down the affected task and the gap between current and required performance. Review a sample of errors and identify which arise from skills and which from procedures, authority, or tools. Draft an assignment specifying what the program will address and what requires a parallel management decision. If there is no evidence of a skills gap, diagnose the need again before developing content.
- Suggested owner
- Training director and process owner
- Required output
- An approved design assignment and clear boundaries
- Progression check
- Every learning need has performance evidence and a target task
2 Profile learners and define entry requirements
Create a group profile covering roles, experience, language, technology skills, and available time. Use a short diagnostic task, identify essential prior knowledge, and provide a bridging route for those who need it. Agree to group learners by performance level rather than job title alone, and identify required accommodations and how materials can be accessed when connectivity is poor. Record entry conditions before nominations so they are transparent and fair.
- Suggested owner
- Learning designer and human resources
- Required output
- A learner profile, admission rules, and pre-assessment
- Progression check
- Admission conditions are task-related and verifiable
3 Write learning outcomes and success criteria
For each module, write an observable action, its subject, performance conditions, and acceptance criterion. A suggested example: the employee classifies ten service cases using the approved guide and justifies exceptional cases. Define critical errors that prevent a pass even when the total score is high. Present outcomes to the work manager to ensure that training success reflects a task actually needed.
- Suggested owner
- Subject matter expert and learning designer
- Required output
- An outcomes and acceptance criteria matrix
- Progression check
- A direct assessment can be designed for each outcome
4 Map the pathway and sequence modules
Sequence modules according to knowledge dependencies: foundations, simple cases, exceptions, then an applied project. Define each module's prerequisites, delivery method, estimated learning time, and exit point. Where appropriate, use short readings for introductory knowledge and reserve sessions for practice and discussion. Clarify where learners need a trainer, where they can learn independently, and where supervision is required during real application.
- Suggested owner
- Pathway designer and program manager
- Required output
- A pathway map and estimated delivery schedule
- Progression check
- No module requires a skill that has not already been acquired or demonstrated
5 Build activities and the learning package
Design an exercise for every outcome before preparing slides. Include a de-identified real-world case, learner instructions, suggested time, an explained solution, and a scoring guide for the trainer. Add borderline cases, common errors, and a situation requiring professional judgment. Review the language and accuracy of examples and the rights to use them, and make files readable and printable. If AI assists with a draft, the expert must verify every fact, example, and source.
- Suggested owner
- Subject matter expert and materials developer
- Required output
- A learner package and trainer delivery guide
- Progression check
- Every activity serves an outcome, and every material has a version and a responsible reviewer
6 Design assessment and calibrate scoring
Combine checks during learning with a final task requiring a new application. Use a rubric describing specific levels of quality rather than general labels such as excellent. Have two assessors trial scoring on the same samples and discuss differences before use. Publish rules for retries, feedback, and appeals. Retain test versions and forms, and separate attendance assessment from proficiency assessment.
- Suggested owner
- Assessment officer and subject matter expert
- Required output
- Assessment tools, a rubric, and review procedures
- Progression check
- Criteria are understood and applied consistently by assessors
7 Run a limited pilot and improve
Deliver a pilot version to a group representing the target levels, observing activity duration, recurring questions, and difficulties using materials. Collect work products, assessment results, and trainer and learner feedback. Classify observations as content errors, task difficulty, presentation problems, or timing issues. Address the cause and retest the affected part. High satisfaction alone does not resolve a defect that prevents task performance.
- Suggested owner
- Program manager and quality team
- Required output
- A pilot and adjustment log, and a readiness decision
- Progression check
- Defects affecting content and assessment validity have been resolved
8 Transfer learning and manage the program life cycle
Before the program ends, the learner and supervisor agree on a work task, review date, and verification evidence. Provide a short template and help when difficulties arise. Assign an owner to monitor procedure changes and decide when to update materials or withdraw an old version. Review results by group and module, then decide whether to retain, adjust, or redesign. Follow-up review should reflect the available opportunity to apply learning, rather than one fixed deadline imposed on every program.
- Suggested owner
- Line supervisor and program owner
- Required output
- An application plan, version register, and periodic review
- Progression check
- There is a real application opportunity and evidence of performance after learning
Guide and editable templates: https://uhrda.net/en/organizations/guides/learning-design/
4. Working templates
Review the illustrative row, then complete a copy of the blank row using your organization’s information. Download each template as CSV or print it within the guide.
Outcomes and activities alignment template
Complete before writing content; the first row is a hypothetical example and the second is provided for use. Add a separate criterion for critical errors where applicable.
| Task | Learning outcome | Activity | Evidence of proficiency | Acceptance criterion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Triage service requests | Classify cases and justify exceptions | Simulate ten cases | A classification and reasoning form | Suggested threshold: 8 of 10 and no critical error |
Module and application pathway brief
Link the module to the learner's work; the supervisor keeps a copy of the agreed task, and the timeframe is reviewed against workload.
| Module | Entry requirement | Learning method | Work task | Verification owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyze causes of delay | Read a transaction register | Case workshop and peer review | Analyze a sample of actual transactions | Service manager using the rubric |
5. Hypothetical example: developing staff for an organizational service
A hypothetical organization wanted to prepare 24 employees to triage requests. Diagnosis showed differences in understanding exceptions, while part of the delay arose from missing approval authority that training could not address.
- The organization separated the authority decision from the program and designed three modules and a common simulation task.
- The exceptions module was piloted with six employees, after which two ambiguous cases were rewritten.
- Everyone completed a practical assessment; 18 passed initially and two more passed after support and reassessment, making the workplace application group 20 employees.
Interpreting the result
In the hypothetical educational figures, the first-attempt pass rate was 75%: 18 of 24. After reassessment, the supervisor followed up with the qualified group of 20 employees; application was verified for 15, or 75%. The remaining four had not yet passed and therefore did not enter workplace follow-up. These figures do not represent actual Union results.
Learning from the case
It is useful to distinguish proficiency from attendance, and training weaknesses from a lack of application opportunities or authority.
6. Measures and follow-up
Agree each definition, data source, baseline, target and accountable owner before measurement. Targets require organizational approval. A zero denominator makes a ratio not calculable rather than zero.
| Measure | Calculation | Source | Review frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assessment coverage of learning outcomes | Number of learning outcomes with direct assessment evidence ÷ total approved outcomes × 100; if no outcomes have been approved, the indicator cannot be calculated | Design matrix and assessment tool review | Before approving each version |
| First-attempt pass rate | Number meeting the proficiency standard on the first attempt ÷ number taking the first assessment × 100; report absentees separately | Assessment register and test version | For each cohort |
| Verified application | Number of assessed individuals demonstrating acceptable workplace performance ÷ number assessed after an opportunity to apply learning × 100; show follow-up coverage alongside it | Work samples and supervisor checklist | After an application opportunity defined by the program |
| Pathway completion | Number completing pathway requirements ÷ number starting in the same cohort × 100; this alone does not demonstrate proficiency | Enrollment register and completion requirements | At cohort closure |
7. Indicative implementation plan
The periods below are adaptable planning stages, not guaranteed delivery times.
| Period | Action | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|
| Phase one: a suggested two weeks | Profile the group, confirm outcomes, and build the design matrix | An approved design document and pathway map |
| Phase two: a suggested three weeks | Develop the learning package and assessment tools, and run the initial pilot | A delivery-ready version with an improvement log |
| Phase three: according to application opportunities | Deliver the cohort, follow up on workplace tasks, and review results | A proficiency and application report and an update decision; durations are estimates rather than a standard |
8. Common pitfalls
Starting design with attractive titles
Link every title to a task, a gap, and evidence of proficiency before approval.
One package for all levels
Use pre-assessment, foundation modules, or documented exemptions.
Relying on recall questions
Add a work product or simulation matching the required task.
A certificate implying accreditation that does not exist
Accurately describe attendance or passing and the limits of the program.
Support ending when classroom sessions end
Define a supervisor, application task, support method, and review date.
9. Review checklist
- □ The design is linked to a documented performance need.
- □ Admission, assessment, and exemption rules have been published.
- □ Exercises and scoring tools have been piloted.
- □ Each outcome matches an activity and assessment evidence.
- □ Application has been agreed with the supervisor.
- □ The content owner, review date, and sources are identified.
Use this checklist at the final review. Record observations, the decision owner, approval date and document version.
10. Further reading
Original practical material prepared for the Arab Union for Human Resources Development. Sources support the concepts and further reading; the illustrative models and cases belong to this guide. Reviewed: 16 October 2026.
- CDC — Quality Training Standards
A general reference for objectives, interaction, content accuracy, assessment, and follow-up; its use does not mean the program is accredited by CDC.
- CDC — Assess Training Needs: Conducting Needs Analysis
A reference for examining the training audience and its circumstances before choosing a learning method.
- CDC — Evaluate Training: Building an Evaluation Plan
A reference for defining the purpose and questions of evaluation and data collection methods early in design.