Audience
New hires within their first 90 days, when collaboration habits, team trust, and role confidence are still forming.
Project overview
Role & Scope
Instructional designScenario architectureStoryline developmentPrototyping & testingAccessibility & QA
Design Principles
- Action Mapping
- Gagné’s Nine Events
- Mayer’s Multimedia Principles
- Kirkpatrick Evaluation
Primary Tools
Storyline 360FigmaAdobe CCMindMeisterAI-assisted production
The
Problem
Ripple Crest depends on effective cross-team collaboration, yet new hires may understand those expectations without knowing how to apply them under pressure.
Common challenges include holding back in meetings, avoiding productive disagreement, and focusing only on individual work during shared deadlines. These behaviors can slow time-to-productivity, weaken team trust, delay project work, and affect client confidence.
Research on onboarding, psychological safety, and team communication reinforced the need for realistic practice rather than additional information.
The
Solution
I designed a self-paced workplace simulation that gives learners a safe place to practice collaboration decisions before they carry real consequences.
A scenario-based experience was the right solution because the gap involved judgment under pressure, not missing knowledge. The simulation complements policy training,
systems instruction, role-specific onboarding,
and manager check-ins.
Experience at a glance
A quick view of how the solution moves learners through three realistic workplace decisions before bringing those choices together in a cumulative 90-day review.
Week 1
Contribute during a project kickoff meeting.
3 Weeks Later
Help resolve a conflict between speed and quality.
1 Month Later
Support the team during a deadline crunch.
Day 90
Review the long-term impact of those choices.
Core experience features
Three design elements shape every decision point, combining realistic consequences, optional mentor support, and cumulative assessment.
Consequence-Based Branching
Choices affect teammates, the client, and project status.
On-Demand Mentor Support
Learners can access just-in-time guidance without being given the answer.
Cumulative Assessment
Decisions across all three scenarios carry forward into the final performance review.
My process
I used an ADDIE-aligned process, moving from performance analysis and action mapping through design, development, prototype review, and formative evaluation. Because this was a concept project, implementation focused on producing, testing, and refining the eLearning experience rather than completing an organizational rollout.
Guiding Design Question
What must the learner do differently on the job, and how can this experience provide meaningful practice?
This question kept the project centered on performance rather than information delivery.
I used AI selectively across research, problem-solving, media production, and technical refinement. These tools accelerated production, but the performance goal, scenario logic, accessibility decisions, and quality control remained designer-led.
Action mapping
I used Cathy Moore's action mapping approach to focus the project on workplace behavior rather than information recall — tying a single business goal to the specific things a new hire needs to do on the job.
Proposed business goal
Decrease time-to-productivity for new hires by 20% within their first 90 days by preparing them to collaborate effectively during project meetings, team conflict, and deadline pressure.
A concept-project target used for design alignment, not a verified business result.
Priority Behavior 01
Connect ideas to shared goals
Build on a teammate’s contribution and link it to the client or project objective.
Priority Behavior 02
Navigate competing priorities
Acknowledge different perspectives and propose a balanced path forward.
Priority Behavior 03
Support shared deadlines
Step in when unfinished work puts the team’s deliverable at risk.
Time-to-productivity for new hires will decrease by 20% within 90 days of employment, as employees collaborate effectively in project meetings, resolve team conflicts constructively, and contribute to deadlines as team players.
Collaborate Effectively in Project Kickoff Meetings
Greet team members by name at the start of the meeting
Share one idea or suggestion aloud that is connected to the client or project goals
Invite feedback by asking open-ended questions
Acknowledge others’ contributions
Do not interrupt a teammate mid-sentence
Dedicate time in the meeting to praise team member contributions
Paraphrase another person’s contribution before adding your own
Why this priority?
01 · Shared-goal alignment
Keeps meetings focused on the shared project goal, reducing drift, misalignment, and wasted effort.
Highlight unique perspectives by pointing out when someone contributes a new angle
If an idea comes to mind while another person is speaking, retain it until it is your turn to share
Resolve Team Conflicts Constructively in Meetings
Acknowledge concerns aloud without judgment
Ask a clarifying question before responding to better understand a teammate’s perspective
Frame solutions using “we” language to emphasize shared ownership
Why this priority?
02 · Productive compromise
Helps teams resolve competing priorities without stalling progress or escalating conflict.
Maintain calm body language while speaking
Use a steady, calm voice tone
Do not escalate tension with sarcasm or hostility
Support Team Deliverables to Meet Deadlines
Offer a concrete support task that helps the team meet approaching deadlines
Why this priority?
03 · Team-first delivery
Protects shared deadlines when individual priorities compete with the team’s most urgent deliverable.
Provide progress updates at agreed upon intervals during the project
Keep the team informed of your role in meeting the deadline
Seek team input before working on deliverables not already assigned to you
Share your availability to support unassigned tasks that help the team meet the deadline
State your immediate next steps to align with the team’s deadline goals
Project Action Map: Connects the proposed business goal to observable workplace behaviors, with the three priority actions carried forward into the scenario design.
SCENARIO ARCHITECTURE
I used backward design to map the narrative, learner choices, consequences, mentor support, media direction, and programming around the three target behaviors. Each scenario asks the learner to apply one of them through a realistic decision.
How Gagné shaped the experience
I embedded Gagné's Nine Events of Instruction throughout the simulation rather than presenting them as a visible checklist. Together, the events structure how learners enter the experience, connect it to prior workplace knowledge, practice targeted skills, receive feedback, and carry each decision forward across the 90-day journey.
Gagné Event
Engage and Orient
Gagné says
How I implemented it
Gain Attention
I framed the experience as an investigation into archived workplace decisions.
Inform Learners
of the Objectives
of the Objectives
The opening gives the learner a clear mission and establishes team alignment as the central challenge.
Stimulate Recall
of Prior Learning
of Prior Learning
It connects the scenarios to familiar workplace dynamics.
Cinematic Interactive Introduction: The archived-footage opening gains attention, establishes the learner's mission, and activates prior workplace knowledge before the first decision.
Gagné Event
Guide and Practice
Gagné says
How I implemented it
Present the
Content
Content
I built three scenario-based decision points around competing priorities, client expectations, and project support.
Provide Learning
Guidance
Guidance
Learners can consult Leah for optional, just-in-time guidance.
Elicit
Performance
Performance
Learners then independently choose how to respond in each situation.
Mentor Support System: The mentor offers just-in-time intervention while each scenario requires the learner to apply collaboration skills through a consequential workplace decision.
Gagné Event
Reinforce and Assess
Gagné says
How I implemented it
Provide Feedback
I connected each decision to visible effects on team trust, client confidence, and project progress.
Assess Performance
Those consequences accumulate across all three scenarios.
Enhance Retention
and Transfer
and Transfer
The experience culminates in a 90-day performance review that reflects the learner’s overall pattern of decisions.
Storyboard Consequence Sequence: Team, client, and project responses provide feedback while the cumulative review assesses performance.
VISUAL SYSTEM
With the visual system established, I moved from early wireframes to high-fidelity Figma mockups before developing the experience.
How Mayer shaped the experience
I applied Mayer's Multimedia Principles to remove nonessential elements and keep the learner's attention on the choice at hand, shaping the actual interface, not just the theory behind it.
01
Predictable layouts
Prompts, choices, navigation, and mentor support stay in consistent locations across every decision point.
02
Familiar workplace formats
Watch messages, phone videos, voice memos, and project trackers make feedback feel authentic.
03
Contextual feedback
Learners see the effect of a choice immediately — and again later through its ripple consequences.
Wireframe → high-fidelity → final · Cinematic title
Wireframe → high-fidelity → final · Scenario decision slide
Visual Mockups: Shows how early layout wireframe concepts evolved into a cohesive visual mockup system for the full learner journey.
Prototype & iteration
After producing high-quality AI images and videos, I built a focused prototype containing an interactive cinematic opening, learner personalization, a meet-the-mentor interaction, the first branching scenario with related positive and negative consequences, and core navigation logic with an overarching ripple theme.
Testing one complete scenario allowed me to gather feedback early, validate a repeatable model, and reduce rework before developing scenarios two and three.
Feedback-Based Revisions
Revision 01
Opening: Clarified learner purpose
Reviewers found the original surveillance framing unclear and potentially "Big Brother." I reframed it as an authorized archive review with a clearer learner mission.
Revision 02
Pacing: Accelerated time to choice
Extended movement and mentor dialogue delayed the first choice. I shortened Leah's hallway sequence, tightened the meeting setup, and removed nonessential layers.
Revision 03
Consequence clarity: Strengthened cause & effect
Some ripple effects didn't clearly connect to the selected behavior. I revised dialogue, client responses, status updates, and on-screen text to strengthen cause and effect.
Revision 04
Storyline logic: Stabilized revisits and states
Revisits produced persistent states and inconsistent transitions. I refined states and revisit properties, added conditional triggers, JavaScript, and consistent navigation patterns.
Full development
After validating the interaction model, I expanded it into three branching workplace scenarios with personalized paths and consequences, mentor support, custom media, accessibility features, and a 90-day performance review.
On-Demand Mentor Support
Leah, the onboarding mentor, appears during transitions and remains accessible through a persistent badge. The badge introduces a predictable support feature learners can return to throughout the experience. When selected, Leah offers brief, just-in-time questions that help learners consider people, priorities, and consequences without revealing the strongest choice.
Optional Scaffolding: The left image shows how Leah’s mentor badge is introduced and remains available as an on-demand support feature, while the right image shows what Leah’s guidance looks like when learners choose to access help, allowing them to reflect while retaining ownership of the decision.
Consequence-Based Feedback
Each decision triggers connected workplace responses through team reactions, watch messages, client communications, project updates, and mentor reflections.
Effective choices strengthen trust and momentum, while ineffective choices reveal uncertainty, delay, or client concern before the learner tries again.
Connected Consequences: Immediate reactions and delayed ripple effects show how one workplace decision can influence the team, project, and client.
Performance-Based Assessment
The learner's performance is tracked across three workplace criteria:
- Kept the team connected to the goal
- Helped the team work through competing priorities
- Stepped in when the deliverable needed support
The final review turns those decisions into observable workplace outcomes rather than an abstract quiz score. Evidence from all three scenarios is carried forward into the cumulative 90-day review, which determines whether the learner has demonstrated the three target behaviors consistently. Successful performance unlocks a permanent-role confirmation and positions the learner as a future co-mentor alongside Leah.
Workplace-Based Assessment: The client’s response confirms the impact of the learner’s decisions on the team’s work, while the 90-day review evaluates performance across the same three behaviors practiced throughout the experience.
Results & takeaways
Formative testing shaped the final build, and a concept project still needs a plan for proving it works. What follows is what reviewers found, what I would measure before rollout, how accessibility was built in, and what I am carrying into the next project.
Formative results
Reviewers and testers found the scenarios engaging and relevant while identifying opportunities to improve pacing, navigation, visual cues, and feedback clarity.
Addressing those issues resulted in a faster, more predictable experience with clearer connections between learner choices and workplace consequences.
Key lessons learned
Four lessons came out of building and testing this experience:
- Prioritize performance over information: Design practice around what learners need to do on the job.
- Use consequences to support reflection: Realistic outcomes help learners consider the broader effect of their choices.
- Prototype before full development: Early testing reduces rework and protects project timelines.
- Use AI as a controlled production workflow: AI became most useful when I paired it with clear design criteria, reference systems, manual refinement, and Storyline implementation.
Future evaluation
Because this is a concept project, live organizational results were not collected. Before rollout, I would pilot the experience with representative new hires, then evaluate its effectiveness across their first 90 days using a Kirkpatrick-aligned plan:
Level 1
Reaction
Question
Did learners find the experience relevant, useful, and confidence-building?
Measures
- confidence
- relevance
- usefulness
Level 2
Learning
Question
Did learners improve their workplace decisions after practice and feedback?
Measures
- initial decision accuracy
- final decision accuracy
- improvement after feedback
Level 3
Behavior
Question
Did learners apply the target behaviors during onboarding?
Measures
- manager observations
- onboarding check-ins
- early project interactions
Level 4
Results
Question
Did the experience contribute to earlier role readiness and project contribution?
Measures
- time-to-productivity
- onboarding readiness
- early project contribution
Accessibility integration
Accessibility was built into the experience during development rather than added afterward, shaping how learners access audio, navigate the interface, and read the screen.
01
Audio-independent access
Closed captions for spoken media and a Quiet Echo pathway using visible dialogue and on-screen text.
02
Consistent interaction patterns
Standardized navigation, button placement, and mentor access across decision points.
03
Readable interface design
Clear text presentation and no reliance on audio alone for critical instructions or feedback.
Before rollout, I would validate keyboard navigation, focus order, screen-reader behavior, alternative text, color contrast, and assistive-technology compatibility against relevant WCAG 2.2 AA and Section 508 requirements.
One project, from performance problem to finished experience.
The scenarios here are specific to onboarding. The approach is not: define the behavior first, prototype before building, and let testing change the design. That is what I would bring to your team.