Is your training program built for performance, or just built?

A structured scoring of each task on how hard it is, how important it is, and how often it’s performed, run with the people who do the work. The scores then get tested against your curriculum, which is where over-trained and under-trained tasks become visible. It’s the fastest way to find out whether a program is aligned to the job.

Not if the rationale is documented. Every retirement candidate we identify comes with the objective it did or didn’t serve and the reason it’s a candidate. What creates exposure is content nobody can justify, whether it’s in the program or out of it.

Both. Most coaching, review, and account management work is delivered remotely, which keeps cost down and cadence up. Facilitated working sessions with subject matter experts and instructor workshops are usually better in person, and we will say which is which when we scope.

Yes. With no legacy program to reconcile, the work is a straight build: task analysis first, then program structure, then materials. New build programs often move faster than operating fleets because there’s no existing curriculum to defend.

Not strictly. Analysis, review, coaching, and content work are all sold as standalone projects regardless of what system you run. But VISION is where this method was built: it connects each part of the program as your team develops it, so the task list, the objectives, the materials and the qualification evidence stay linked rather than drifting apart. Subscribers also get a named account manager. The consulting work doesn’t require it; the program is easier to defend with it.

A method that derives training from validated job tasks rather than from subject matter. You analyze the job, define objectives from the tasks, design and develop training against those objectives, implement it, then evaluate and feed the findings back. In regulated work it also carries an evidence burden: every link in that chain has to be documented well enough to defend.

By what the task scoring says. Tasks that are difficult, important, and infrequently performed need periodic reinforcement, so they belong in continuing training. Tasks that are foundational and performed constantly belong in initial and then get left alone. Most bloated programs are carrying continuing-training content that should have been retired or moved.