A diagnostic tool designed to determine whether training is the right solution, identify root causes, and model business impact before development begins.
Stakeholders defaulted to training as the answer, even when the issue was rooted in a process gap, unclear expectations, or an environmental barrier. L&D was expected to deliver solutions without a standardized way to evaluate the request first. Decisions were being made on assumption rather than evidence, and there was no consistent method to assess business impact, cost, or feasibility before development began.
The result was that training got built for problems training couldn’t solve. Time and resources went into programs that moved completion metrics but didn’t change performance. The conversation needed to shift from “what should we build” to “should we build anything at all.” That required a different kind of tool than a course.
The tool runs a 20-question structured intake interview with 9 conditional follow-ups that activate based on the stakeholder’s answers. Questions surface evidence, observable behaviors, business goals, and constraints, then feed into three independent scoring engines that each evaluate a different dimension of the request. All scoring, framework analysis, and verdict logic runs without the AI layer. AI mode adds conversational follow-ups and document understanding to a tool that already produces a complete analysis.
Scores the request against gap type, evidence quality, motivation signals, environmental barriers, and prior training outcomes. Starts from a neutral baseline and adjusts based on what the data supports. Compliance and regulatory signals trigger a floor to prevent false negatives on required training.
Evaluates whether building is viable given the timeline, budget, SME availability, content stability, and stakeholder risk factors. A project can score high on training need but low on feasibility, and the tool surfaces both without conflating them.
Tracks the quality and completeness of evidence behind the scores. High confidence means the recommendation rests on multiple corroborating sources. Low confidence flags where data collection should happen before any development decision is made.
A decision tree that routes to a recommended delivery method based on gap type, learner characteristics, geographic dispersion, urgency, and budget. The recommendation is suppressed when the verdict is Do Not Build or when data is insufficient, so the tool never produces a modality suggestion it cannot support.
The diagnostic produces a live in-tool dashboard, a stakeholder-ready report, and a session-level control layer. Every artifact pulls from the same underlying analysis, so a stakeholder never sees two numbers that disagree. Six instructional design frameworks run behind it all: Mager and Pipe, Kirkpatrick, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Merrill’s First Principles, Knowles/Andragogy, and Action Mapping. They run simultaneously so no single framework drives the outcome.
The moment the intake completes, a five-tab dashboard renders the full analysis on screen. Built for working through the results in real time: scanning outputs, checking evidence against the intake, and deciding whether to challenge a finding before anything goes to a stakeholder.
A full executive report generated from the same analysis as the dashboard. Leads with a one-sheet cover that carries the verdict, three KPIs, a why-it-matters grid, a risk grid, and the recommended action. Backed by five appendices that hold the rigor underneath.
Dashboard and report share one data contract. A verdict visible on screen is the same verdict written in the document, with the same KPIs and the same ordering.
Users can challenge findings, correct assumptions, and apply overrides through a conversational interface. The tool detects correction intent and re-runs the affected scoring functions before refreshing every tab. Every session can also be exported as a formatted PDF report and reimported later, so no analysis is lost between conversations.
A private dashboard inside the tool auto-logs every completed analysis with its verdict, confidence score, gap type, and modality. Past PDF reports can be imported in bulk to rebuild a consulting history. All data stays in the practitioner’s browser, and a running figure tracks how often requests are routed to non-training solutions.
“The hardest part of this project wasn’t building the tool. It was designing something that could tell a stakeholder their training request was wrong.”
The scoring logic had to be defensible enough to hold up in a director's room. Any result the tool produced needed to be explainable in a room with a director or VP who came in expecting a yes. That required careful decisions about what each scoring function owned, how evidence quality was weighted, and where penalties applied so no single factor could distort the outcome. Every score is accompanied by the specific reasons that drove it. Every verdict surfaces the factors that shaped it.
The design principle behind every decision was that this tool should be an asset in a stakeholder conversation. That meant the output could not be a black box that produced a number. It had to be something an L&D professional could walk into a meeting with and defend, line by line, because the person across the table had already decided what they wanted the answer to be.
The demo below runs two pre-loaded scenarios: a customer service onboarding knowledge gap with a Strong Build verdict, and a warehouse system migration where training is not the right solution. Both show the full analysis flow, including scoring, framework output, and the recommended action plan.
Demo version. Two curated scenarios are pre-loaded. No API calls are made and no data leaves your browser. The production tool offers both basic mode and AI mode. Both use the same framework-based scoring engine. AI mode adds conversational follow-ups and document understanding on top.
Screenshots from a live session walking through the intake flow, analysis dashboard, and stakeholder-ready report.
Curious how this kind of thinking shows up across all my work? View Approach →