Optional supporting resource

Worked examples

Three illustrative, fully completed workbooks. Each one walks through every page of the workbook, from 2 Before you begin to 8 What comes next.

These examples are illustrative, not real client stories. Your discovery will look different, and that's expected. Nothing here is saved to your workbook.

Example 1

A growing corporate L&D team

Twelve designers and developers supporting five business units, with request volume rising every quarter.

2Before you begin

What in the list stands out to you?: “Review is connected to expectations” stood out right away. We review almost everything, but I'm not sure our reviewers are working from the same expectations, or that designers know what those expectations are before review starts.

3Plan your discovery

What is prompting you to look more closely at quality now?: Reviewers raise different issues on similar projects, and late changes are causing rework and missed dates.
What would you like to understand better?: How review expectations are set and shared, and when stakeholders expect to be involved.
Item 1: What will you examine? Review comments from four recent projects
Why might this be useful? (optional) To see what reviewers focus on.
Item 2: What will you examine? Our two existing review checklists
Why might this be useful? (optional) To see who uses them and how.
Person 1: Person or role: Three designers
Why their perspective could be useful (optional): They can describe how they learn what reviewers expect.
How you might involve them: One-on-one conversation
Person 2: Person or role: Two reviewers
Why their perspective could be useful (optional): They can explain what they look for during review.
How you might involve them: One-on-one conversation; Review something together
Person 3: Person or role: One business-unit stakeholder
Why their perspective could be useful (optional): They can share when and how they expect to be involved.
How you might involve them: Ask for feedback
How will you conduct your discovery?: Conversations or interviews
Review of supporting materials
Review of existing processes, guidelines, standards, or tools
How will you capture what you learn? (selected): Record findings in this workspace
Use my own notes or documents

4Your plan

Plan summary

5Record what you learn

Finding 1: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Interviews with two reviewers
What did you learn? One reviewer uses a personal checklist; the other reviews from experience.
What supports this finding? Both checklists, shared after the interviews.
Finding 2: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Review comments from four recent projects
What did you learn? Comments on two projects focused on formatting; on the other two, on accuracy.
What supports this finding? Comment exports from all four projects.
Finding 3: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Interviews with three designers
What did you learn? Designers said they learn what reviewers expect mostly from past feedback.
What supports this finding? Notes from each conversation.
Finding 4: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Conversation with a business-unit stakeholder
What did you learn? The stakeholder was unsure when in the process they were expected to review.
What supports this finding? Meeting notes from the conversation.

6Review what you found

What pattern are you noticing?: Review expectations live with individual reviewers.
What makes you think this is a pattern?: It shows up across Findings 1, 2, and 3.
What's working well?: Reviewers are thorough and designers value their feedback.
Where are you seeing inconsistency or friction?: Review focus varies by reviewer; stakeholder timing is unclear.
What appears to be missing or underdeveloped?: A shared, written description of what reviewers look for.
What do you still need to understand?: Whether other stakeholders share the same uncertainty.
Were there any important differences in what people told you or what you observed?: Designers felt review expectations were clear once explained; reviewers assumed designers already knew them.
What matters most?: Shared review expectations.
Why does it matter?: Late, inconsistent feedback is the main source of rework.

7Our current state

Report summary
Prepared by: Maria Lopez, L&D Manager

8What comes next

Next steps: Share the report with the team and the stakeholder group, then begin defining what quality means for our learning experiences.

Example 2

A small team of newer designers

Three instructional designers, most in their first two years, sharing design, development, and facilitation work.

2Before you begin

What in the list stands out to you?: “Documented quality expectations.” Most of what we know about doing good work lives in our heads, or in whoever has been here longest. When someone is unsure, they ask a teammate instead of checking a shared guide, because we don't have one.

3Plan your discovery

What is prompting you to look more closely at quality now?: We keep fixing the same kinds of issues on different projects.
What would you like to understand better?: How each of us starts a project and makes early design decisions.
Item 1: What will you examine? The templates each designer uses
Why might this be useful? (optional) To see where we start.
Item 2: What will you examine? Three recent course outlines
Why might this be useful? (optional) To compare early decisions.
Person 1: Person or role: All three designers
Why their perspective could be useful (optional): Each of us starts projects differently.
How you might involve them: Group discussion; Review something together
Person 2: Person or role: Our manager
Why their perspective could be useful (optional): They see the final drafts across all projects.
How you might involve them: To be determined
How will you conduct your discovery?: Group discussions
Review of supporting materials
How will you capture what you learn? (selected): Record findings in this workspace

4Your plan

Plan summary

5Record what you learn

Finding 1: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Comparison of the templates each designer uses
What did you learn? Each designer started their last project from a different template.
What supports this finding? The three templates, side by side.
Finding 2: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Three recent course outlines
What did you learn? Two outlines included learning objectives; one did not.
What supports this finding? The three outlines.
Finding 3: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Team discussion
What did you learn? Designers ask each other what “good” looks like when unsure.
What supports this finding? Notes from the 90-minute session.
Finding 4: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Check-in with our manager
What did you learn? Our manager reviews final drafts but rarely sees early outlines.
What supports this finding? Review dates on the last three projects.

6Review what you found

What pattern are you noticing?: Early design decisions are made individually and seen late.
What makes you think this is a pattern?: It shows up across Findings 1, 2, and 4.
What's working well?: We help each other readily and talk openly about our work.
Where are you seeing inconsistency or friction?: Different starting points lead to different structures.
What appears to be missing or underdeveloped?: A common starting point and written guidelines.
What do you still need to understand?: How much time our manager could give to earlier review.
Were there any important differences in what people told you or what you observed?: Designers thought our manager preferred to see only final drafts; our manager said earlier outlines would be welcome.
What matters most?: A shared starting point for every project.
Why does it matter?: It would reduce repeat fixes and help newer designers.

7Our current state

Report summary
Prepared by: Jordan Lee, Senior Instructional Designer

8What comes next

Next steps: Share the report with our manager and agree on a small set of guidelines to plan for quality from the start.

Example 3

A compliance training function

A two-person team in a regulated organization maintaining required annual training for several thousand employees.

2Before you begin

What in the list stands out to you?: “Quality is supported by a system” stood out most. Our updates get done, but the records of who asked, who approved, and what changed are spread across email, chat, and spreadsheets. If an auditor asked tomorrow, I'm not confident we could show the full trail.

3Plan your discovery

What is prompting you to look more closely at quality now?: Recent audit questions about how course updates are approved.
What would you like to understand better?: How content changes are requested, approved, and documented today.
Item 1: What will you examine? Update history of two courses
Why might this be useful? (optional) To trace a change end to end.
Item 2: What will you examine? Where approvals and version notes are stored
Why might this be useful? (optional) To see whether records are kept in one place.
Person 1: Person or role: Team colleague
Why their perspective could be useful (optional): They handle half of all course updates.
How you might involve them: One-on-one conversation
Person 2: Person or role: Legal reviewer
Why their perspective could be useful (optional): They approve content changes.
How you might involve them: One-on-one conversation; Ask them to provide information or materials
Person 3: Person or role: LMS administrator
Why their perspective could be useful (optional): They publish updates and keep version notes.
How you might involve them: Ask them to provide information or materials
How will you conduct your discovery?: Conversations or interviews
Review of existing processes, guidelines, standards, or tools
How will you capture what you learn? (selected): Record findings in this workspace
Other: paper notes during interviews

4Your plan

Plan summary

5Record what you learn

Finding 1: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Where change requests come from
What did you learn? Change requests arrive by email, chat, and in meetings.
What supports this finding? A sample of recent requests from each channel.
Finding 2: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Interview with the legal reviewer
What did you learn? Legal approval is recorded for some updates but not all.
What supports this finding? Approval emails exist for one course only.
Finding 3: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Conversation with the LMS administrator
What did you learn? Version notes are kept in a separate spreadsheet.
What supports this finding? The version-notes spreadsheet.
Finding 4: What did you review, discuss, or observe? Trace of the last update to two courses
What did you learn? We could reconstruct the last update to one course, but not the other.
What supports this finding? Records found for the first course; gaps for the second.

6Review what you found

What pattern are you noticing?: Records of a change are split across people and tools.
What makes you think this is a pattern?: It shows up across Findings 1–4.
What's working well?: Updates are made promptly and the LMS administrator keeps careful notes.
Where are you seeing inconsistency or friction?: Requests and approvals follow different paths each time.
What appears to be missing or underdeveloped?: A single place for requests, approvals, and versions.
What do you still need to understand?: What auditors expect to see.
Were there any important differences in what people told you or what you observed?: The legal reviewer believed every approval was on file; the LMS records showed approvals for only one course.
What matters most?: Traceable approvals for every course update.
Why does it matter?: They are required for audit.

7Our current state

Report summary
Prepared by: Priya Shah, Compliance Training Lead

8What comes next

Next steps: Share the report with legal and the LMS administrator, then plan how quality assurance and record-keeping could work together.

Back to home