Your Chief Virtual Learning Architect

Learning to Performance

Read More
Custom Design & Delivery

Read More
Predictive Evaluation

Read More
Enterprise Learning Strategy

Read More

› ‹

1
2
3
4

Dave Basarab Consulting has elevated the training experience, offering an end-to-end comprehensive approach that includes training strategy, instructional design, development, delivery , post program training transfer, and evaluation (via the unique Predictive Evaluation methodology). Virtual Chief Architect Dave Basarab has combined all of these individual training elements with his user-friendly, comprehensive Learning to Performance approach, which significantly increases companies' training ROI.

Why we are different

Innovation: Our primary focus is creating learning programs using a Learning to Performance approach.
Expertise: Dave offers the depth and breadth of his experience, including working internally at prestigious companies (Motorola, Ingersoll Rand and Pitney Bowes) as well as his knowledge and expertise as a highly-respected, sought-after consultant.
Partnership: Basarab collaborates with companies, serving as their own Chief Learning Officer whenever they need to plan, strategize, or implement training initiatives.

Training Services

Enterprise Learning Strategy

Enterprise Learning Strategy

At Dave Basarab Consulting, we're experts in creating Enterprise Learning Plans. We work with you to develop your company's learning strategy and direction.

Custom Design, Development, & Delivery

Custom Design, Development, & Delivery

Custom training is an effective way of developing the capability required to execute your strategy. We are a custom design house that creates programs specific to your business.

Learning Burst Development

Learning Burst Development

We can create and deliver your courses via our unique Learning Burst Method - keeping your employees at their jobs while receiving world-class training.

Predictive Evaluation

Predictive Evaluation

We predict the ROI for your courses and establish success gates. We then evaluate the course against the success gates to show value realized and continually improve results.

Leadership Development

Leadership Development

Turn-key virtual custom leadership development program that combines world-class leadership speakers/educators with post-event personalized coaching to provide you with a cadre of highly skilled leaders.

Predictive Evaluation

How to select the best instructional design model for your project

The most effective instructional design model for your project connects a business performance gap to observable work behaviours, builds capability, and survives contact with managers, technology and participants’ schedules.

Treat learning design as a business decision, not a formatting preference. Test audience readiness, available time, delivery constraints and evaluation evidence before choosing ADDIE, an agile approach or another framework.

Compare models using strategic fit, speed to pilot, workplace transfer, scalability and total cost. The best route may combine backward design for outcomes with iterative prototyping for content.

Model	Best suited to	Main advantage	Common risk
ADDIE	Complex, governed learning	Clear stages and documentation	Slow before a prototype
Successive Approximation Model (SAM)	Fast content releases	Visible versions and feedback	Weak foundations if analysis is skipped
Backward design	Defined workplace skills	Assessment-to-work alignment	Under-designed learning experience
Action learning	Live management challenges	Immediate application and peer insight	Needs a suitably complex challenge
Agile learning design	Uncertain needs	Flexible sprints	Fragmented effort without ownership

Start with the performance gap

Begin with the performance gap, not the intervention. Define the business result, the behaviours that will change, and the evidence that work has improved. This prevents a polished course masking a broken process, unclear role or missing equipment.

Gather evidence from the sponsor, operational managers, learners and subject-matter experts. The journal guidance on five signs of drift can show whether the current strategy needs rebuilding before another program is commissioned.

Turn findings into a weighted decision brief covering audience capability, urgency, regulatory exposure, internal expert capacity, technology, budget and evaluation. Weighted criteria make trade-offs visible and reduce preference-driven choices.

Match the model to the work

ADDIE fits programs needing strong analysis, approval controls and documented implementation, such as safety learning. Backward design works when leaders can specify learning outcomes, observable behaviours and valid assessment conditions. SAM suits teams willing to test early versions rather than wait for a complete build.

A learning consultancy can separate model choice from decisions about platform, format, facilitator role and assessment. A sound model still fails when delivery is under-resourced or learners cannot apply the skill.

Action learning suits managers tackling operational problems, while blended learning may better support dispersed teams. Avoid choosing a named model for prestige; select the smallest process that manages risk, produces evidence and supports transfer.

Design for adoption and transfer

Learning has value only when people use the new capability. During design, identify where practice will occur, what managers will reinforce, and which prompts, job aids or peer routines support the habit. Learning bursts can reinforce a core program without recreating full courseware.

Predictive Evaluation should begin before development. Establish a baseline, define leading indicators such as confidence and practice frequency, and track business measures that plausibly follow behaviour change. This creates evidence about adoption, impact and return on investment rather than completion counts alone.

Reaction data can improve the experience, but it cannot prove changed performance. Combine Kirkpatrick-style measures where useful with observation, system data and business indicators, and document the causal claim each measure supports.

Build for Australian delivery conditions

Australian projects often span Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and regional operations, creating different time zones, shift patterns and facilitator access. Hybrid delivery must account for bandwidth, quiet study space and workers who share devices or study during rostered breaks.

Public-sector teams in Canberra should expect procurement, accessibility and governance requirements to shape design. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, reasonable adjustments and inclusive access belong in the brief. Clear ownership for content approval prevents delays between sign-off and production.

If the program awards or aligns with a vocational qualification, check the regulatory boundary with the relevant training organisation and Australian Skills Quality Council requirements. The Fair Work Act 2009, National Employment Standards and applicable enterprise agreements may affect paid training time and consultation.

Protect learner information when assessment or workforce analytics are involved. For covered organisations, the Privacy Act 1988 governs collecting and handling personal information. When internal experts lack facilitation or curriculum-design time, structured subject matter coaching can improve content quality without transferring the whole build burden onto them.

Compare delivery, cost and scalability

Estimate full operating cost beyond design fees: content development, subject-matter expert time, accessibility testing, platform fees, facilitators, assessment, revisions and post-launch support. Compare cost per learner across cohort sizes, and check whether assets can be reused without weakening local relevance.

Pilot the riskiest assumption with a representative group. For ADDIE, test governance and review effort; for SAM or agile design, test whether rapid versions still meet quality requirements. A short pilot should produce evidence about clarity, engagement, delivery effort and likely workplace application.

Treat scale as a design condition. Modular learning can support multiple business units, but common modules need configurable examples and clear governance for local updates. This balance matters in Australia’s competitive corporate training market, where buyers increasingly expect measurable performance rather than a generic course library.

Make the decision and start the next cycle

Record the selected model, rejected options, assumptions and evidence in a decision log. Name owners for instructional design and content quality, plus a business sponsor who can confirm the target behaviour remains valuable. This makes later changes traceable rather than reactive.

Build a four-week minimum viable learning cycle: analysis and success measures, prototype, facilitated or coached testing, then evaluation planning. Run it with a small cohort, collect evidence, and decide whether to scale, revise or stop. The cycle should validate the model’s suitability, not merely generate content.

The project’s next step is a 45-minute model-selection workshop with the sponsor, a subject-matter expert and the learning lead, producing a one-page decision brief with weighted criteria, a recommended ID model and pilot scope.

Learning to Performance

Learning to Performance, a complete training approach, gives companies world-class training to drive significant return. This approach includes upfront work (Impact Mapping, design), training (for staff and company executives), and post-training efforts to ensure training transfer. This unique recipe - the key for successful training and adoption - is changing the way companies implement training. This methodology could work with any content for organizations in any industry.