Why Preparation Really is 90%
Most training projects don’t fail because the content is bad.
They fail because the thinking didn’t happen early enough.
I often tell clients that building effective e-learning is 90% preparation and 10% production and while it sounds like a cliché, it’s one of the most reliable truths in learning design.
The conversations you have before anything is built, the digging, questioning, and clarifying are what determine whether a project runs smoothly… or quietly unravels halfway through.
And yet, the urge to just get started is strong.
You want to:
update an existing course
move classroom training online
build something bespoke quickly
Completely understandable.
But skipping proper preparation is where time, budget, and patience start leaking.
Why preparation matters more than you think
E-learning projects usually follow a set of stages, sometimes linear, sometimes iterative.
You may be familiar with ADDIE, the traditional waterfall approach. It’s still widely used.
The methodology I prefer and use with clients is LLAMA (Lot Like Agile Management Approach), designed by Megan Torrance. It allows for iteration, feedback, and multiple releases.
But here’s the key point:
No matter the method, every good project starts with analysis.
And analysis is the stage most often rushed or quietly skipped.
“But it’s only an update…”
I hear this all the time.
“It’s just a small update.”
“We’re only converting it to online.”
“We already have the content.”
Time is tight. Adding “analysis” can feel like extra work.
But even a light, focused analysis pays for itself, because it prevents you from building the wrong thing efficiently.
What the analysis stage actually does
Analysis is about understanding:
Why this training exists
What needs to change
Who it’s really for
Get these wrong, and even beautifully built learning won’t land.
1. It aligns learning with business goals
Training should exist to improve performance, reduce risk, or support growth, not just to “get information out”.
Analysis ensures your course is tied directly to a business outcome, which also makes ROI easier to demonstrate later.
2. It reveals the real problem
Not every issue needs training.
A proper learning needs analysis helps you spot when the issue is actually:
unclear expectations
poor process design
lack of feedback
missing tools
Sometimes the right answer isn’t a course at all, it’s a job aid, a checklist, or a change in workflow.
Skipping this step is how organisations end up with training that looks busy but doesn’t change anything.
3. It stops you designing for the wrong learner
Even existing courses need a learner check-in.
Who’s accessing it now?
On what device?
In what context?
With what pressures?
Understanding this shapes:
tone
structure
length
format
And ultimately, whether people actually use the learning.
4. It clarifies what “good” looks like
If you can’t clearly say what learners should do differently at the end, the course will drift.
Analysis defines:
action-based objectives
success measures
how effectiveness will be assessed
Without this, learning becomes content-heavy and outcome-light.
5. It reduces rework (and frustration)
Most budget overruns happen when someone realises halfway through:
“This isn’t quite what we meant.”
Thorough analysis doesn’t remove change, but it massively reduces big changes late in the process, when they’re most expensive.
What comes out of good analysis
Analysis always centres on Why, What, and Who but the outputs vary depending on the project.
The Why
Understanding the business problem.
Useful tools here include:
Root Cause Analysis
5 Whys
SWOT or SOAR
The goal is clarity not paperwork.
The What
Revisiting learning objectives and checking they’re action-based, not just “things people should know”.
This is where approaches like Bloom’s Taxonomy help shift focus from memory to behaviour.
The Who
Understanding real learners, not assumptions.
This includes:
how they access learning
time pressures
language and confidence levels
whether learning needs to be short, spaced, or supported
The better you know this, the easier design decisions become.
Starting from scratch (bespoke projects)
For new learning, analysis usually results in three clear deliverables:
Learning Needs Analysis
What’s happening now vs what needs to happen.Learner Personas
Human, practical profiles that keep design grounded in reality.Action Mapping
Designing learning around job actions not content coverage.
This is where learning stops being theoretical and starts driving performance.
Making analysis work (without overcomplicating it)
My practical advice:
involve stakeholders early
keep learners front and centre
design for actions, not information
define success before building anything
Analysis doesn’t need to be heavy, it needs to be honest.
Final thought
Good preparation isn’t a delay.
It’s what stops you wasting effort later.
If you want learning that genuinely improves performance, not just activity, the work starts before anything is designed or built.
This is exactly what my Define & Align service is for.
It’s a structured discovery process that helps you:
clarify the real performance problem (not just the symptoms)
understand who the learning is actually for
decide whether training is needed at all and if so, what kind
avoid wasting time and budget on the wrong solution
Sometimes this leads to e-learning.
Sometimes it leads to something simpler and more effective.
Either way, you leave with clarity and a direction you can trust.
If you want to get the foundations right before committing to build, Define & Align is the right next step.