How I work

The process I've run for 20 years with different labels.

Analysis is stakeholder interviews and user research. Design is information architecture and interaction design. Development is building the thing. Implementation is shipping it. Evaluation is success criteria per release.

I did not learn ADDIE from a textbook. I learned it shipping enterprise software for two decades, then found out the L&D world had a name for it.

Agile instincts, ADDIE discipline.

I default to iterating: prototype early, test with real learners, revise. For compliance-grade content that has to be right the first time, I run the full ADDIE sequence with formal sign-offs. The method serves the risk profile, not the other way around.

Most training measures whether people liked the course. I design for whether they do the job differently.

Smile sheets and quiz scores are Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2. They tell you the course was pleasant and memorable. They do not tell you anyone works differently on Monday.

Every course I design starts with the Level 3 question: what behavior should change, and how will we see it? Where the data exists, Level 4: what business result should move? When something is planned but not yet measured, the case study says so plainly.

AI in the build, and AI as the subject.

I use AI tooling to build learning experiences faster: drafting scenarios, generating assessment variants, cutting production time between iterations. And I design training that teaches AI adoption itself, because that is the change most teams are being asked to make right now.

Concrete, not hype. If a tool does not shorten the path from analysis to shipped course, it goes.