Training Governance

This is our primary training governance document. It defines how we govern, design, approve, deliver, evaluate and improve professional training, and who is accountable at each point. The summary below sets out the standard we hold ourselves to.

Governance principles

• Human accountability: named people remain accountable for course quality, delivery decisions, assessment decisions and learner support.
• Evidence-led content: material is based on primary, official, professional, academic or credible industry sources, with factual claims reviewed proportionately to risk.
• Controlled delivery: trainers use approved course versions, facilitator notes, activities and assessment methods, with defined freedom to contextualize examples without changing the learning standard.
• Learner-centered practice: varied learning modes, active practice, discussion and accessible support rather than lecture alone.
• Continuous improvement: evaluation, assessments, trainer debriefs, client feedback, complaints and incidents feed the next delivery.
• Client and legal alignment: client policies, venue requirements, confidentiality, data protection, health and safety and applicable law are respected throughout.

Course design and content

• Learning objectives describe the knowledge, skill or capability the learner should develop, and are reflected in the agenda, activities and assessment approach.
• Sessions use visual explanation, facilitation, demonstration, polls and quizzes, practical exercises, reflection, discussion and applied problem-solving as appropriate.
• As a delivery standard, trainers avoid extended passive instruction. Roughly every fifteen to twenty minutes, learning is broken by an activity, question, demonstration or application segment.
• Legal and regulatory claims are checked against primary or authoritative texts where possible.
• Course owner and reviewer attribution, source evidence and material changes are retained in the course record.

Trainer approval

• Trainer selection considers subject expertise, facilitation capability, professional experience, credentials and course-specific fit.
• References, prior training examples or portfolio evidence may be requested proportionate to the role and engagement.
• Before delivering our content independently, trainers complete course briefing and facilitator-note review, and where required train-the-trainer activity, a dry run or observed delivery.
• External trainers must comply with confidentiality, intellectual property, professional conduct, data protection and responsible AI controls.
• Trainer approval may be reviewed or withdrawn where quality, conduct, currency, confidentiality or client requirements are not met.

Delivery standards

• Live workshops normally use a lead trainer and a support trainer, with additional facilitators for larger cohorts or specialist activities.
• Learners are given real opportunities to bring their own experience and connect content to their roles and context.
• Questions and discussion are built into delivery rather than deferred to the end.
• Reasonable adjustments are made using the support trainer, accessible digital materials, seating and venue coordination, display options and additional breaks.
• Face-to-face delivery follows the venue and client premises and emergency arrangements alongside our Training Health & Safety Policy.

How we measure whether it worked

Not every measure applies to every engagement; the course owner and the client scope determine the set. Where agreed, we also measure practical adoption, workflow change, productivity or implementation outcomes linked to the engagement.

• Learner satisfaction and recommendation scores.
• Trainer delivery, clarity and relevance ratings.
• Pre and post knowledge, confidence or capability change where appropriate.
• Assessment, quiz, exercise or applied-task results.
• Attendance and completion records.
• Client and sponsor feedback and repeat-engagement indicators.
• Complaints, appeals, incidents, accessibility issues and corrective actions.
• Content-review timeliness, source and verification evidence, and trainer debrief findings.

Where a module or delivery area falls below our internal quality threshold, it triggers a material review of the relevant feedback and of the delivery and content factors behind it. Repeated or significant concerns trigger trainer coaching, content revision, additional learner support or formal corrective action.

Content currency and change control

• Fast-moving AI content is reviewed at least monthly.
• An urgent out-of-cycle review is triggered by a significant factual error, a material tool change, new or amended regulation, a client restriction, a learner or trainer concern, or a safety or privacy issue.
• Other controlled content is reviewed periodically and whenever a material change affects accuracy, relevance or learning outcomes.
• Material changes are recorded in version history and superseded versions are withdrawn from active use.
• Errors found during delivery are corrected promptly, and where material the affected learner material is corrected or reissued.