The problem
The L&D team I was part of had a solid process — discovery, planning, build. That part was done properly. But the moment a course was handed over to the LMS team, it was over. No feedback loop. No evaluation. No way of knowing whether anything we built was working, landing with the audience, or needed fixing.
We were producing learning products and releasing them into a void.
The thought process
The absence of any post-build process is a problem. A credibility problem. Without data, you can't improve your products. Without evidence, you can't demonstrate value. I wanted to fix both.
The framework I built was a structured, three-level measurement system. At the first company, Level 1 was the active focus.
Level 1 is about capturing learner feedback consistently and at scale; building enough data to identify trends, spot problem courses, and make informed improvements over time. I wanted something concrete that we could act upon, not just to collect responses.
Once the data started coming in, I made a second decision: turn the trends into a monthly report for senior leaders. Each report covered how many courses were produced, completion numbers, direct learner feedback, trend analysis, areas performing well, areas needing improvement, and, critically, what had actually been changed since the last feedback cycle.
That last part mattered. It meant the report wasn't just a status update. It was evidence of a team that was listening, iterating, and improving.
The outcome
In the months the framework was running, we received over 10,000 learner feedback responses. That data gave us the ability to identify underperforming courses, make targeted improvements, and track whether those improvements had the intended effect.
The monthly report was recognised at director level. I personally received an internal award for my contributions to the company as a direct result of this work. Other departments across the business took notice and wanted in — what started as an L&D measurement process became a cross-department collaboration that I largely managed.
That's the first company. Tens of thousands of employees.
Since that contract ended, I've refined the framework and implemented it at a second company — significantly smaller, different industry, different culture, under 100 employees. Level 1 is running. Levels 2 and 3 — which introduce manager validation and formal behaviour change tracking — are also active and showing positive early results.
The framework works. Not just at scale, and not just in one environment. The data across both companies makes that case clearly.