Skip to content

Portfolio case studies

The reasoning behind every design decision.

Each case study follows the same structure: the problem, the audience, the performance gap, why learning was the right intervention, how the experience was designed, and how success would be measured.

Case study 01 · AI Enablement · Change Management

AI Adoption Program for Employees

Turning tool access into confident, responsible daily use.

Take the related course

Problem

The organization purchased AI tools for every knowledge worker. Six months later, licence usage sat well below expectation and the people using the tools most were not the people whose work would benefit most.

Audience

Corporate employees across functions, with mixed confidence — from daily experimenters to people quietly avoiding the tools entirely.

Performance gap

Employees did not lack access. They lacked a way to judge which tasks were appropriate, how to get usable output, and where the real risk boundaries sat. Uncertainty resolved itself as avoidance.

Why learning was the right intervention

A staged adoption pathway rather than a single course: fundamentals, prompt design, workflow redesign, responsible use, and scenario practice — each stage producing a real work artifact the learner keeps.

Design strategy

  • Led with a plain explanation of how the technology works, because every downstream judgment depends on it.
  • Taught one portable prompt structure instead of a catalogue of tricks that age within months.
  • Taught risk through a sympathetic scenario — a well-meaning shortcut — rather than a policy list.
  • Built workflow redesign into the course so learners left with one changed task, not with notes.

Measurement

  • Scenario decisions on task suitability and data handling as the in-course performance measure.
  • Sustained weekly active use by function at 30, 60, and 90 days.
  • Self-reported hours returned per week, sampled rather than surveyed universally.
  • Count of workflows formally redesigned by teams after the program.

What this demonstrates

  • Change management
  • Technology adoption
  • Adult learning
  • Performance improvement

How the Clarity Learning Framework™ guided this design

  1. 01Understand

    Employees need confidence using AI tools responsibly in everyday work.

  2. 02Clarify

    Defined the essential skills employees need to successfully apply AI.

  3. 03Design

    Created a staged pathway with scenario-based learning and practical examples.

  4. 04Engage

    Included decision-making activities, prompt practice, and workflow redesign.

  5. 05Improve

    Identified ways to measure confidence, adoption, and workplace application.

Learning objectives

  • Explain in plain language what an AI assistant does when it responds.
  • Construct a prompt containing role, context, task, and constraints.
  • Evaluate whether a given task is appropriate for AI assistance.
  • Apply data minimization before using any AI tool.

Design decisions

  • Led with how the technology works, because every downstream judgment depends on that one idea.
  • Chose 'four-part prompt' as a single portable structure rather than a catalog of prompt tricks that age quickly.
  • Made the risk scenario about a well-meaning shortcut, since that is where real exposure happens.
  • Included downloadable job aids because this is a workflow skill practiced away from the course.

Assessment strategy

Applied practice producing a real prompt, plus judgment items on task suitability. There is no vocabulary quiz — knowing the term 'token' does not predict safe or effective use.

Accessibility considerations

  • Plain-language explanations without unexplained jargon.
  • All activities completable with keyboard alone.
  • Structure uses real headings and lists for screen reader navigation.
  • No time-limited interactions.

Reflection

I use AI tools daily in my own instructional design workflow, and that shaped this course: the honest framing — useful for drafting and structuring, unreliable for fact — earns more trust from skeptical learners than enthusiasm does.

Case study 02 · Customer Education · SaaS

Customer Education Academy

Shortening time-to-value for a complex platform.

Take the related course

Problem

New customers of a complex software platform completed setup but stalled before reaching the features that drive renewal. Support volume was dominated by questions the product already answered.

Audience

Newly onboarded software customers — administrators and end users — learning under deadline pressure alongside their normal job.

Performance gap

Customers could find documentation but could not sequence it. Nothing told them what to learn first, what to postpone, or how to know they were ready to move on.

Why learning was the right intervention

A staged customer learning journey: guided onboarding, interactive product tutorials, knowledge checks, a searchable resource library, and a certification pathway that gives internal champions something to show.

Design strategy

  • Sequenced by customer outcome — first value, then depth — rather than by product menu structure.
  • Used guided simulation so learners practice the interface without risking their real configuration.
  • Wrote knowledge checks around the mistakes support tickets showed customers actually making.
  • Made the resource library the destination, so the course teaches learners where to return.

Measurement

  • Time from account creation to first key workflow completed.
  • Support ticket volume in the deflectable categories the academy covers.
  • Certification completion by account, used as an adoption health signal.
  • Feature activation rates for the capabilities taught in each stage.

What this demonstrates

  • Customer education
  • SaaS learning
  • User adoption
  • Performance support

How the Clarity Learning Framework™ guided this design

  1. 01Understand

    New customers stall between setup and the features that create real value.

  2. 02Clarify

    Named the first outcomes a customer must reach, and in what order.

  3. 03Design

    Sequenced a guided journey by customer outcome rather than product menu.

  4. 04Engage

    Used guided simulation and knowledge checks in a safe practice environment.

  5. 05Improve

    Tracked time-to-value, support deflection, and feature depth over time.

Learning objectives

  • Set up a workspace aligned to an existing team structure.
  • Complete the core reporting workflow unassisted.
  • Select the appropriate sharing permission for internal and external audiences.
  • Diagnose the three highest-volume support issues.

Design decisions

  • Organized around three customer jobs instead of the product's menu structure, so the course survives interface changes.
  • Wrote the simulation steps against the top support-ticket drivers rather than the full feature set.
  • Used flashcards for permissions because the distinction is a recall problem, while sharing decisions are a judgment problem — so those got a scenario.
  • Ended with certification framing to give customer-side champions something to show internally.

Assessment strategy

Practice tasks with immediate feedback, then a certification assessment built from real diagnostic situations. Passing requires diagnosis, not definition recall.

Accessibility considerations

  • Simulation steps are provided as readable text instructions, not image-only hotspots.
  • Every interactive control has a discernible accessible name.
  • Focus order follows the visual reading order throughout the player.
  • Progress information is announced as text, not conveyed only by a bar.

Reflection

Designing this clarified a rule I now apply to all customer education: teach the customer's job, never the vendor's menu. Course content organized around the interface goes stale with every release.

Case study 03 · Corporate L&D · Employee Experience

Employee Onboarding Experience

Getting new hires productive and confident faster.

Take the related course

Problem

Onboarding was a compliance checklist delivered in week one. New hires finished it knowing the policies and still spent their first month unsure who to ask, how decisions were made, or what good work looked like.

Audience

New employees across roles, including fully remote hires with no informal hallway learning available.

Performance gap

The gap was not information. It was the unwritten operating norms that existing employees absorb over months and never document.

Why learning was the right intervention

A digital onboarding journey covering culture in practice, scenario activities drawn from real first-month situations, manager resources, and performance support tools that stay useful after the course ends.

Design strategy

  • Taught values as decisions rather than statements, since a value that never changes a choice is decoration.
  • Built first-month scenarios with genuinely defensible wrong answers.
  • Gave managers a parallel resource so onboarding is a shared responsibility, not an LMS assignment.
  • Kept a job aid layer available after completion, because week three is when the questions arrive.

Measurement

  • Time to first independent contribution, as judged by the hiring manager.
  • New hire confidence pulse at 30 and 90 days on knowing where to get help.
  • Manager-reported ramp quality compared with the previous cohort.
  • Voluntary turnover within the first six months.

What this demonstrates

  • Corporate L&D
  • Employee experience design
  • Scenario-based learning

How the Clarity Learning Framework™ guided this design

  1. 01Understand

    New hires arrive motivated but unsure how work actually gets done here.

  2. 02Clarify

    Separated what new hires must know day one from what can wait.

  3. 03Design

    Built a paced first-90-days experience around real tasks and expectations.

  4. 04Engage

    Added workplace exploration, sorting activities, and manager conversations.

  5. 05Improve

    Measured time to first contribution, confidence, and early retention.

Learning objectives

  • Describe the organization's mission and operating values in the learner's own words.
  • Identify the correct support channel for common first-week needs.
  • Apply workplace norms to realistic situations encountered in the first month.
  • Select an appropriate action when expectations are unclear or conflicting.

Design decisions

  • Replaced the traditional policy tour with three operating values, chosen because they predict day-to-day behavior.
  • Used a tabbed interaction for values so learners control pace and can revisit without re-watching linear content.
  • Wrote distractors in the scenario that are plausible and common, not obviously wrong, so the decision has real cognitive load.
  • Kept every section under five minutes to fit realistically into a first week.

Assessment strategy

Formative knowledge checks with explanatory feedback after each concept, followed by a summative item that requires recognizing a behavior rather than restating a definition. Reflection prompts capture self-identified gaps and feed the manager conversation.

Accessibility considerations

  • All interactions are operable by keyboard and expose state to assistive technology.
  • Color is never the only signal for correct or incorrect feedback — text and icon labels carry the meaning.
  • Text content meets contrast requirements at standard body sizes.
  • Motion is limited and respects the learner's reduced-motion preference.

Reflection

If I were building a second iteration, I would add a branching manager conversation so learners could practice raising a workload concern — the situation new hires most often report avoiding.

Case study 04 · Healthcare · Compliance

Healthcare Learning Experience

Making complex requirements understandable and actionable.

Take the related course

Problem

Annual privacy and compliance training was completed by everyone and applied by few. Incidents kept coming from staff who had passed the assessment weeks earlier.

Audience

Clinical and administrative healthcare staff completing required training between patient responsibilities, in short interrupted sessions.

Performance gap

Staff could recite the rules. They could not apply them in the ambiguous, time-pressured moments where the rules actually matter — a hallway question, a shared screen, a family member asking.

Why learning was the right intervention

Microlearning built around patient scenarios and decision activities, with knowledge checks that test judgment in context rather than recall of policy language.

Design strategy

  • Replaced policy recitation with situations staff recognize from their own week.
  • Designed for interruption: short sections that survive being closed and reopened.
  • Wrote feedback that explains the reasoning, so judgment transfers to situations not covered.
  • Named the gray areas explicitly instead of pretending every case is clear-cut.

Measurement

  • Scenario decision accuracy, tracked by scenario type to locate specific weak spots.
  • Reported privacy incidents by category over the following two quarters.
  • Escalation quality — whether staff route uncertain cases correctly instead of guessing.
  • Completion time distribution, to confirm the module fits real shift conditions.

What this demonstrates

  • Technical communication
  • Compliance training
  • Human-centered learning

How the Clarity Learning Framework™ guided this design

  1. 01Understand

    Staff know the rules but hesitate in the ambiguous moments that matter.

  2. 02Clarify

    Focused on the judgment calls that create real risk, not policy recall.

  3. 03Design

    Designed realistic decision practice with immediate, explanatory feedback.

  4. 04Engage

    Used branching scenarios drawn from everyday clinical situations.

  5. 05Improve

    Reviewed decision accuracy, incident patterns, and refresher needs.

Learning objectives

  • Recognize protected health information across written, verbal, and incidental formats.
  • Apply the minimum necessary standard to access, sharing, and requests.
  • Identify a near-miss and take the correct first-hour actions.
  • Select a compliant response to a sympathetic but unauthorized request.

Design decisions

  • Chose a scrolling structure over slides because staff complete training on mobile between tasks and need to resume easily.
  • Used click-to-reveal for definitions so the page stays scannable for experienced staff while remaining complete for new hires.
  • Built the central scenario around a sympathetic caller — the hardest case — rather than an obvious bad actor.
  • Framed reporting as system improvement instead of blame, which is the documented predictor of near-miss reporting rates.

Assessment strategy

Embedded knowledge checks with corrective feedback, a summative quiz targeting judgment rather than recall, and a reflection that asks the learner to name a personal risk point in their own workflow.

Accessibility considerations

  • Semantic headings create a navigable structure for screen reader users.
  • Reveal interactions are buttons with expanded state, not click-only regions.
  • Feedback states use text labels and icons in addition to color.
  • Content is readable at 200% zoom without horizontal scrolling.

Reflection

The strongest change during design was moving the reporting lesson before the final quiz. In the first draft, reporting felt like an appendix; learners need it framed as the recovery skill, not the paperwork.

Case study 05 · Technical Communication · Knowledge Translation

Science Communication Learning Program

Helping experts be understood without being diminished.

Problem

Researchers and technical specialists were asked to present their work to funders, partners, and the public. Their expertise was unquestioned; their audiences left without the one idea that mattered.

Audience

Scientists, researchers, engineers, and technical subject matter experts across disciplines.

Performance gap

Experts organize knowledge by structure — methods, then results, then implications. Audiences need it organized by relevance. Nobody had ever taught the translation, and 'simplify it' reads to an expert as 'be less accurate'.

Why learning was the right intervention

A learning program that treats translation as a professional skill: audience analysis, message hierarchy, analogy construction, visual choices, and rehearsed question handling — with the accuracy constraint respected throughout.

Design strategy

  • Reframed simplification as sequencing, which removes the fear of losing rigor.
  • Used participants' own current work as the practice material from the first activity.
  • Taught a one-sentence message hierarchy before any slide or figure was touched.
  • Built peer feedback around a single question: what did you hear as the main point?

Measurement

  • Blind audience comprehension checks on the participant's main message, before and after.
  • Expert-rated accuracy of the translated version, guarding against oversimplification.
  • Downstream outcomes participants care about: funded proposals, accepted talks, partner engagement.
  • Self-efficacy shift on handling unexpected audience questions.

What this demonstrates

  • SME collaboration
  • Technical communication
  • Knowledge translation
  • Adult learning

How the Clarity Learning Framework™ guided this design

  1. 01Understand

    Experts lose non-expert audiences long before the evidence is heard.

  2. 02Clarify

    Defined the small set of moves that reliably make complexity land.

  3. 03Design

    Built a Rise-inspired microlearning path of practice-then-explain cycles.

  4. 04Engage

    Learners rewrite, compare, and reflect on their own real material.

  5. 05Improve

    Measured audience comprehension and reuse of the techniques at work.

Case study 06 · Conservation · Environmental Education

Conservation Learning Experience

Turning a conservation challenge into something visitors act on.

Problem

A conservation organization had excellent science, a beloved landscape, and interpretive materials that visitors read politely and forgot. Stewardship behavior at the site was not changing, and the education team was asked to prove the programming was worth funding.

Audience

Park and preserve visitors, volunteer stewards, school groups, and seasonal interpretive staff — most encountering the topic once, briefly, and outdoors.

Performance gap

People were not indifferent. They could not connect a landscape-scale problem to a decision that was actually theirs to make, in the place they were standing, that week.

Why learning was the right intervention

A layered learning experience: a short field-based orientation, place-anchored interpretive moments tied to one behavior each, a volunteer steward training track, and a staff facilitation guide so every seasonal interpreter tells the same story well.

Design strategy

  • Anchored every concept to one visible feature of the landscape, because abstraction is where conservation messaging loses people.
  • Reduced the ask to a small number of specific behaviors rather than general environmental concern.
  • Trained seasonal staff on facilitation and questioning, not on content recall — the content was never the bottleneck.
  • Designed for a single, interrupted, outdoor encounter instead of an ideal classroom session.

Measurement

  • Observed on-site behaviors tied to the specific asks, sampled across the season.
  • Visitor recall of the single core message at the exit point.
  • Volunteer steward retention and hours contributed year over year.
  • Seasonal staff confidence facilitating questions outside the script.

What this demonstrates

  • Conservation learning
  • Environmental education
  • Field-based learning
  • Public engagement

How the Clarity Learning Framework™ guided this design

  1. 01Understand

    Visitors care about the place but cannot see their part in protecting it.

  2. 02Clarify

    Reduced a landscape-scale problem to a few specific, doable behaviors.

  3. 03Design

    Anchored each idea to something visible in the landscape itself.

  4. 04Engage

    Used field-based moments, questioning, and volunteer practice over signage.

  5. 05Improve

    Watched observed behavior and message recall, then retuned the asks.

Case study 07 · Learning Strategy · Consulting

Online Learning Improvement Audit

Diagnosing why a course library nobody finishes is failing.

Take the related course

Problem

A fictional organization with a mature online catalogue saw completion rates fall below thirty percent. The assumption in the room was that learners lacked motivation and the content needed to be more engaging.

Audience

L&D leadership, course owners, and the internal subject matter experts who built the existing library.

Performance gap

The audit found the problem was structural, not motivational: unclear entry points, objectives that promised outcomes the assessments never measured, modules far longer than the available attention window, and accessibility barriers that quietly excluded part of the audience.

Why learning was the right intervention

A five-lens audit — learner journey, content structure, engagement design, assessment alignment, accessibility — producing a prioritized remediation plan sequenced by effort against expected impact.

Design strategy

  • Walked the learner journey end to end before opening a single course, because most drop-off happens before lesson one.
  • Checked every objective against its assessment; misalignment was the single most common defect found.
  • Recommended cutting content volume ahead of adding interactivity, since length was the dominant drop-off predictor.
  • Treated accessibility findings as blocking rather than optional, and estimated remediation cost honestly.

Measurement

  • Completion rate by module, segmented by role and device.
  • Drop-off point analysis to distinguish navigation failure from content fatigue.
  • Assessment-to-objective alignment score before and after remediation.
  • Accessibility conformance pass rate across the remediated catalogue.

What this demonstrates

  • Learning strategy
  • Consulting analysis
  • Evaluation
  • Accessibility review

How the Clarity Learning Framework™ guided this design

  1. 01Understand

    Course quality varied widely and no one could say why.

  2. 02Clarify

    Set shared, observable criteria for structure, alignment, and access.

  3. 03Design

    Created a review process faculty could apply to their own courses.

  4. 04Engage

    Worked alongside faculty in hands-on improvement sessions.

  5. 05Improve

    Re-reviewed courses and tracked learner experience after changes.

Learning objectives

  • Write learning objectives describing observable learner performance.
  • Design assessment evidence before selecting content.
  • Apply adult learning principles to sequencing and engagement.
  • Apply core accessibility practices during design rather than after.

Design decisions

  • Chose five design moves over a comprehensive ID survey, because SMEs adopt small portable structures and abandon frameworks.
  • Made accessibility its own lesson positioned before the summary, signaling that it is design work rather than compliance cleanup.
  • Used learner-produced artifacts as the primary activity so participants leave with real course material, not notes.
  • Kept theory vocabulary minimal and always attached to a decision it changes.

Assessment strategy

Learners produce an objective and its matching evidence for a module they actually teach. Knowledge checks target the discriminations SMEs most often get wrong — recall versus application, and heading style versus heading structure.

Accessibility considerations

  • The course demonstrates every practice it recommends, including heading structure and non-color feedback.
  • All activities are keyboard operable and screen reader navigable.
  • Plain language throughout, with terminology defined at first use.
  • Reduced-motion preferences are respected across all transitions.

Reflection

This is the course I have delivered informally in hundreds of faculty consultations. Building it as a structured module clarified something: the highest-leverage change is almost never the technology — it is asking the expert what the learner must be able to do.