The Enterprise Training Clinic

Most eLearning problems are not “big.” They’re small defects that slip through because nobody owned QA, nobody followed a consistent test flow, or everyone assumed someone else would catch it. A typo in a safety step. A Next button that doesn’t trigger on one slide. A variable that resets when you revisit a scene. A quiz that reports completion in preview but not in the LMS. None of these issues are hard to fix—what’s hard is discovering them after launch, when learners are blocked, stakeholders are frustrated, and your team is in emergency mode. Good QA isn’t a long, painful phase. It’s a repeatable system. When you run QA in lanes and follow the same checks every time, you catch the majority of errors quickly and consistently before they reach learners.

If you’ve shipped enough eLearning, you’ve seen the SCORM nightmare pattern: It launches perfectly in preview. It works on your machine. It works in Review 360. It works in the test LMS.

“Should we build this in Rise or Storyline?” is one of the most common questions in L&D—and one of the most commonly mis-answered. Not because teams aren’t smart, but because the decision often gets made based on tool bias instead of business outcomes. Someone prefers Rise because it’s fast. Someone insists on Storyline because it’s “more interactive.” A stakeholder saw a flashy example and wants that. Another stakeholder wants everything “mobile-friendly.” Then three weeks later, the requirements shift—and the team realizes the tool choice forced an expensive rebuild. The fix is simple: stop choosing tools based on preference. Choose based on what the learner must do, and how you will prove it.

Standardizing technical training across multiple sites sounds straightforward—until you try to do it. One location insists their process is different. Another claims the training doesn’t reflect “how things actually work here.” A third is worried standardization will force the wrong tools, the wrong steps, or the wrong expectations onto their teams. Meanwhile, leadership wants consistency for safety, compliance, quality, and auditability—and they want it yesterday. That tension is normal. In operations environments, standardization isn’t just a learning project. It’s a negotiation about identity, control, and risk. The mistake is treating it like a content problem. The real work is designing a model that protects enterprise standards without erasing local reality.

Coaching breaks when it depends on heroic managers. In most sales orgs, the managers who coach well are doing it through sheer effort: they listen to calls late at night, they remember what each rep is working on, they give thoughtful feedback, and they follow up. That approach doesn’t scale. As soon as headcount grows (or managers get busy), coaching becomes inconsistent—and ramp, conversion, and forecast quality all drift. A repeatable coaching system fixes this by reducing coaching to a simple operating model that creates consistency without adding headcount. The goal isn’t “more coaching.” The goal is predictable behavior change, week after week.

Playbooks fail because they’re built like documents, not tools. Most sales playbooks are created with good intentions: standardize messaging, help new reps ramp, reduce inconsistency, and make “best practices” easy to access. Then reality hits: the playbook gets launched, a few people skim it, and it quietly becomes shelfware. Not because reps don’t care—but because reps don’t search PDFs in the middle of a call. When a rep is live with a prospect, they don’t want a chapter. They want an answer. And if they can’t find it fast, they’ll improvise. That’s how messaging drift, inconsistent qualification, and unreliable deal execution happen—one moment at a time. The fix isn’t “better documentation.” It’s a different structure: a playbook designed as a real-time decision tool, built around how selling actually happens.

Product updates fail in the field for two predictable reasons: reps hear about changes too late—or they hear about them in a 12-page release note that nobody can translate into what to say on calls. Speed matters, but accuracy matters more. If you move fast and train the wrong thing, you don’t just waste time—you create messaging drift, broken demos, and lost deals. The goal is not “more enablement.” The goal is a repeatable, lightweight system that turns every product change into the smallest set of sales-ready assets—fast, consistent, and easy to find.

Slow ramp isn’t a rep problem. It’s an enablement system problem. When new hires don’t know what “good” looks like by week 2, ramp becomes expensive and inconsistent. Some reps figure it out through luck and great managers. Others stall, copy bad habits, or over-rely on SEs and top performers. And by the time the team realizes ramp is off-track, you’re already paying for it in missed pipeline, messy forecasting, and manager burnout. The fastest way to reduce time-to-productivity isn’t adding more training. It’s building a clear ramp system that defines outcomes, sets weekly checkpoints, and requires proof—not just completion.

Most training teams miss timelines for the same reason: every course becomes a one-off. A new topic arrives, and the team rebuilds the same mechanics—intro screens, navigation logic, knowledge checks, feedback pop-ups, interaction layouts—just to tell a different story. Even when the content is solid, production slows down because too many decisions get made repeatedly, and every build introduces new room for inconsistency. A reusable template system fixes that. It turns interactive training into a repeatable production capability. You stop “designing the interface” on every project, and you start focusing your time on the parts that actually move performance: the workflow, the decisions, the practice, and the proof.

If you’ve ever tried to build training around a complex technical process, you’ve likely hit the same wall: the engineer who knows everything is also the engineer who has no time. Meetings get pushed. Reviews take weeks. Stakeholders get frustrated. The training team starts chasing details, and the SME starts feeling like the project is becoming a second job. That dynamic isn’t a personality issue. It’s a predictable failure mode—what we call the Expert Trap. When training depends on experts to teach, write, edit, review, and approve, you don’t just slow the project down. You burn out the very people the business can least afford to distract. The fix isn’t asking engineers to “be more responsive.” The fix is changing the system so their time is used only where it creates unique value.

Most organizations don’t have a “training problem.” They have an SOP problem that shows up as a training problem. On paper, the SOP is accurate. It’s been reviewed, approved, and updated. In practice, it still fails—especially when people are moving fast, working tired, multitasking, or operating in high-risk environments. Under pressure, technicians and frontline teams don’t “follow the document.” They follow what they remember, what feels familiar, and what the environment rewards. If you want real compliance and consistent execution, the goal isn’t to publish better SOPs. The goal is to convert SOPs into training that holds up when conditions are imperfect.

If your technicians work rotating shifts, training tends to become uneven by default. The day shift gets the most attention, the late shift gets a shortened version, and the night shift gets whatever is left over. Even when the content is strong, the delivery model collapses under the reality of operations: different start times, different levels of supervision, different fatigue patterns, and different access to tools and equipment. That’s why “one big rollout” rarely holds up in the field. A scalable approach starts with a simple truth: shift work doesn’t need more training events. It needs a training system that matches the rhythm of the job.

If you lead L&D (or you’re the person everyone thinks is “L&D”), you’ve probably felt it: training requests come in waves, then all at once, then nonstop. A new tool rolls out. A policy changes. A business unit gets audited. A leader hears about a training trend. Suddenly your inbox becomes a triage center, and everything is “urgent.” Most teams assume they have a volume problem. In reality, they usually have an intake governance problem. When requests arrive through Slack messages, forwarded emails, hallway conversations, and “quick favors,” you don’t just get more work—you get unstructured work. And unstructured work creates two expensive outcomes: rework (because you built the wrong thing or built it too early) and escalations (because stakeholders can’t see what’s happening). The goal of intake governance is not to slow people down or add bureaucracy. It’s to create a system that is fair, transparent, and fast—so you can deliver the right training with fewer loops.

“Can you quickly make a training for this?” is one of the most expensive sentences in enterprise L&D. Drive-by requests usually show up when someone is under pressure and needs a fast fix. The issue is that training is often not the real fix—and even when it is, the fastest version tends to be the least effective. You end up shipping something rushed, unclear, or mis-scoped… then paying for it later in rework, confusion, and a second wave of requests. The goal isn’t to shut people down. It’s to catch drive-bys early, redirect them into clarity, and offer a solution that’s actually proportional to the problem—without creating friction or damaging relationships.

Most rework happens for one simple reason: the wrong people get involved too late. A training request gets approved “in principle,” your team starts building, and then—right when you’re close to launch—someone important sees it for the first time. They ask for changes. Scope expands. Timelines slip. SMEs debate details that should have been decided weeks ago. The build turns into a rewrite. Stakeholder mapping is how you prevent that. It’s not a corporate exercise. It’s a practical way to protect your timeline, reduce churn, and make sure the work you build is actually the work the organization will approve.

Multi-BU (Business Units) L&D fails for one reason: inconsistency becomes political. One business unit says the training is “wrong for us.” A region says the examples don’t apply. HQ says everything must be standardized. Everyone is technically right — and the result is predictable: you rebuild the same training over and over, under different names, with slightly different screenshots, terminology, and “local tweaks.” That isn’t a content problem. It’s an operating model problem. When you don’t have a clear structure for what must be consistent versus what can flex, every review becomes a debate and every rollout becomes a negotiation. Over time, training stops feeling like an asset and starts feeling like a moving target. The solution is a simple model that scales: Core + Configurable, supported by a light governance layer that prevents rework without slowing the business down.