The Compliance Deadline That Can't Slip
You are the sole instructional designer at a 400-person regional bank. Federal compliance requires all mortgage loan officers (62 people) to complete new fair-lending training within 45 days or the bank faces penalties. The subject matter expert is the compliance director, who has 90 minutes total to give you before going on leave. She hands you a 140-slide deck of regulations, three prior-year incident reports, and a two-page memo. Leadership wants 'an engaging e-learning course,' but the loan officers are skeptical, busy, and have failed two prior compliance quizzes at a 40% rate. Your LMS can host SCORM packages; you have no budget for new authoring tools and no dedicated developer.
1. How should you prioritize your design decisions given the 45-day constraint and the SME's limited availability?
Read the worked answer
The binding constraint is the deadline plus SME scarcity, so the design must minimize dependence on the SME while maximizing decision-relevant content.
- Extract the assessment blueprint first, not the content. From the three incident reports and the memo, identify the specific behaviors that caused failures. This tells you what learners must be able to do, which is the real scope.
- Use the 90 SME minutes for validation, not content dump. Spend it confirming the 8-10 critical decision points and the consequences of getting them wrong. Record it. Do not try to review 140 slides.
- Triage the deck. Most regulation slides are reference material, not training. Move them to a job aid or searchable resource; train only on judgment calls.
- Design for the skeptical, busy learner. Short scenario-based modules (5-7 min) with realistic loan-officer decisions beat a 60-minute click-through. The 40% quiz failure rate signals the prior design didn't transfer, not that learners can't learn.
- Build in a review buffer. Schedule a single consolidated SME review of the storyboard (async, 30 min) rather than iterative reviews you can't afford.
2. Leadership asks for 'engaging e-learning.' How do you translate that request into concrete design choices you can defend?
Read the worked answer
'Engaging' is a request for attention and transfer, not decoration. Translate it into testable design decisions:
- Relevance: open each module with a real decision a loan officer faces, drawn from the incident reports. Skeptical learners engage when content respects their expertise.
- Active response: every few screens require a decision (branching or scenario), not just 'Next.' Passive clicking is what produced 40% quiz scores.
- Feedback that explains consequences: wrong answers show what happens downstream (denial, penalty, borrower harm), which builds the judgment the compliance goal actually needs.
- Brevity and respect for time: chunk into 5-7 minute modules the learner can complete between appointments, rather than one long seat-time block.
- Defend the trade-off explicitly: tell leadership that 'engaging' here means scenario practice plus job aids, and that a flashy 60-minute course would likely repeat the prior failure. Frame it in compliance-outcome terms, which is what they ultimately care about.
3. The 45-day deadline is fixed. What do you cut, and what must you protect?
Read the worked answer
Protect the things that drive the compliance outcome; cut the things that only add polish.
Protect:
- Coverage of the incident-derived critical behaviors (the reason training exists).
- Scenario practice with explanatory feedback on those behaviors.
- A valid end-of-course assessment aligned to the same behaviors, since the bank must demonstrate competence.
- Accessibility and accurate regulatory content (legal risk if wrong).
Cut or defer:
- Custom graphics, animation, voiceover, and elaborate branching beyond the critical decisions.
- Nice-to-have modules on lower-risk regulations; convert to job aids.
- Iterative review cycles; replace with one consolidated async review.
- Extensive formative evaluation; substitute a small pilot with 5-8 loan officers in week 2 to catch broken scenarios.
Document the cuts in a short design rationale so stakeholders understand what was traded and why. This protects you if someone later asks why the course isn't fancier.