CASE STUDY · EDTECH PLATFORMS
Building an adaptive learning platform for a corporate L&D team.
- 42%Course completion up from 42% to 70%
01 · PROJECT OVERVIEW
The client and the brief.
An anonymised corporate L&D team. Name withheld under confidentiality.
A skills map and role-based learning paths.
We defined the skills each role needs, in plain language, with the L&D team and line managers. We broke existing courses into smaller units and tagged each unit with a skill and a level. Short placement checks decided where each person started. Paths then adjusted as people completed units and passed or failed small assessments. Managers got a simple team view showing progress and blocked learners.
- 1Course completion was low.
- 2The team had a library of mandatory and optional courses, and most people started them and stopped.
- 3Everyone got the same course regardless of role or experience.
- 4Experienced staff sat through material they already knew.
- 5New joiners hit content that assumed knowledge they did not have.
02 · WHAT WENT WRONG
What went wrong, and how we fixed it.
Every engagement hits problems. These were the ones that mattered here, and what we changed so they did not come back.
- PROBLEM 01Early placement checks were too hard
Several experienced staff failed them on wording rather than knowledge, lost confidence and dropped out of the pilot. Pilot feedback and drop-off logs showed it within the first fortnight. We rewrote questions with subject experts, added a "show me anyway" option, and let a later strong result override an early weak one.
- PROBLEM 02Drop-off in the pilot group eased after that
- PROBLEM 03A second, smaller hurdle came in the manager view
The first version listed every learner who was behind, and managers with large teams received a long, discouraging list. Many stopped opening it. We changed it to show the few people who were blocked on a specific unit, with a suggested conversation starter.
- PROBLEM 04Managers began to use it in one-to-ones, because it told them what to do and not just who was late
03 · THE PROCESS
How we ran it.
We held a weekly demo with the L&D lead and a fortnightly session with pilot learners. Changes to the skills map went through a short review so that it stayed consistent. Between sessions the team shared a running list of open questions, so decisions did not wait for the next meeting.
- 01Step 1
Weeks 1 to 2: interviews with learners and managers, review of completion data, first draft of the skills map.
- 02Step 2
Weeks 3 to 6: one role built end to end and released to a pilot group of volunteers.
- 03Step 3
Weeks 7 to 10: more roles added, manager view built, reminders tuned.
- 04Step 4
Weeks 11 to 12: remaining roles, migration of records, handover.
04 · RESULTS
What changed.
Measured against the way the work ran before the engagement began.
- NOW 01
The L&D team reviews drop-off by unit each month and fixes the weakest units first.
- NOW 02
New courses are tagged to skills before release.
- NOW 03
Managers use the team view in one-to-ones instead of chasing by email.
- NOW 04
Skills gaps, not course counts, now decide what training gets commissioned.
- 42%
Course completion up from 42% to 70%
05 · WHAT WE BUILT
How it works.
- The platform sits beside the existing LMS and connects through its standard interfaces for enrolment and completion records.
- A skills service holds the map, the unit tags and each learner's current skill estimates.
- A path engine reads that state and returns the next unit using plain, documented rules.
- It does not use opaque scoring.
- Assessments are short and frequent, and results update the skill estimate immediately.
- Access is role-based.
06 · QUICK ANSWERS
The short version.
- What problem did the client have?
- Course completion was low. The team had a library of mandatory and optional courses, and most people started them and stopped. Everyone got the same course regardless of role or experience. Experienced staff sat through material they already knew. New joiners hit content that assumed knowledge they did not have. Managers had no view of who was stuck, so follow-up was by email and memory.
- What did Brandsmashers build?
- A skills map and role-based learning paths. We defined the skills each role needs, in plain language, with the L&D team and line managers. We broke existing courses into smaller units and tagged each unit with a skill and a level. Short placement checks decided where each person started. Paths then adjusted as people completed units and passed or failed small assessments. Managers got a simple team view showing progress and blocked learners.
- How was the work run?
- We held a weekly demo with the L&D lead and a fortnightly session with pilot learners. Changes to the skills map went through a short review so that it stayed consistent. Between sessions the team shared a running list of open questions, so decisions did not wait for the next meeting.
- What were the results?
- Course completion up from 42% to 70%.
YOUR TURN
Have a similar requirement?
Tell us what is stuck. We will come back with a plan and matched, pre-vetted engineers.
