Developing Compliant Affirmative Action Programs
While virtually all organizations are prohibited from engaging in activities that would violate fair employment practices, federal contractors and subcontractors must make additional commitments to ensuring equal employment opportunity and report the results of their efforts periodically. This 18-hour course aims to help organizations compile and submit these reports.
Audience: Compliance officers, data analysts, and human resource professionals
Tools used: Microsoft Word and Powerpoint, Adobe PDF, Microsoft Teams, TopClass LMS
Instructional approaches: Scenario-based learning, experiential learning, social learning, and graphic organizers
My role: Instructional designer, project manager, SME collaborator, vendor relationship manager, content writer
Problem and Solution: The course facilitators attempted to use classroom training methods and materials to teach this complex course in a virtual environment when the pandemic began. The three-day course was presented in three-hour sessions, twice a day, for three days on Teams using a slide presentation and exercises designed for in-person training. It didn’t go over well with the audience.
The facilitators, who were also the SMEs, asked to work with me to overhaul the course. The goal was not only to design it for delivery to an online audience, but improve the course flow, to make the content easier for learners to understand, to include more useful on-the-job resources, and to include more authentic practice exercises.
Analysis
After the first classroom course was presented at the start of the pandemic, the SMEs met with me to discuss the course’s shortcomings - beyond the obvious challenge of lecturing online for 18 hours over three days. The course content was highly process-driven, and the process itself was complex and closely tied to regulations that were not always clearly written. This made it difficult to establish a logical “flow” when presenting the material, and learners often got lost in the process of building an affirmative action plan.
Although the course included some exercises ro help learners practice compiling data for reports, several key steps lacked hands-on activities, which made the process feel disjointed. Facilitators provided presentation slides and extensive documentation as resources, but much of it wasn’t written in plain language and wasn’t organized or indexed for easy on-the-job reference.
We agreed that a complete overhaul was needed. We planned a series of meetings to redesign the course and address each problem area. Our first step would be to map the entire process step-by-step and develop visuals to help anchor learners in the workflow. Then we would break the course into smaller modules - each focused on one (or sometimes two) steps in the process. Every module would include a practical exercise demonstrating how to compile an affirmative action plan for the federal agency that oversees contractors and subcontractors.
Design
The first step was creating a visual map of the AAP development process, which served as a roadmap for course design. Building this visual clarified why learners has struggled - the process was complex and required careful sequencing. My limited prior knowledge helped me to view the content from a learner’s perspective. After several working sessions, we finalized the detailed outline that identified key decision points and corresponding exercises.
We then restructured the course schedule. Instead of long online sessions, we adopted shorter segments focused on what the learners needed to know, with supplemental reference materials covering nice-to-know content. We selected a “show-try-review” approach, especially in the first week: facilitators demonstrated tasks in the morning, learners practiced them between sessions independently, and their work was reviewed as a group in the afternoon.
Final Course Schedule
The revised two-week course included eight instructional days with morning and afternoon sessions. Once the schedule was approved, I developed templates for the Participant Guide, webinar slides, and an outline showing where each module and resource would appear in the LMS.
Through a series of meetings and draft iterations, we developed content for each module. Using primarily recordings and transcripts from a previous course and supplemented by other documents, I created discrete learning objectives for each module and drafted the Participant Guide in a conversational style . The SMEs reviewed and refined them. I added visuals, examples, and exercises that clarify and reinforce key concepts, with each module beginning with an image showing the step in the process. Limiting modules to about one hour kept the focus on practical, need-to-know content.
Most modules required live facilitation due to their complexity, but two - Foundations of Affirmative Action and Workforce Analysis - were suitable for self-paced delivery as Teams pre-recorded modules. Instead of one large Participant Guide, we separated each module to be distributed daily. This would allow learners to print and annotate their Guide more easily. As modules were approved, I developed exercises, slides, and a Course Navigation and Planning Guide to help learners manage their time and access materials in the LMS. I also drafted daily reminder emails with webinar links, topics, and note where materials could be found in the LMS.
Implementation
After finalizing content documents, I uploaded all the materials - including slides, guide, and resources - to the LMS. Learners received a pre-course email confirming their registration, LMS access, and first session details. A daily email each morning provided the day’s schedule and links to Teams sessions.
During course delivery, a colleague and I supported the facilitators as producers - monitoring chat, assisting learners during exercises, and managing the session flow. Session recordings were uploaded to the LMS each evening for those unable to attend a live session.
Evaluation
Learner feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Participants found the presentations clear and practical, the exercises aligned with real-world tasks, and the materials easy to use. Facilitators were praised for their clarity and responsiveness to questions.
Key Takeaways
Strong SME engagement and expertise early in the overhaul were essential to reorganizing the course logically and ensuring clear, practical focus.
When asked later to shorten the course by eliminating exercises, the facilitator said he would rather reduce the lecture time than eliminate the exercises, underscoring the value to learning outcomes and on-the-job performance.
The visual roadmap of the process proved highly effective in helping learners grasp a complex workflow.
Prioritizing need-to-know content streamlined instruction, improved comprehension, and maintained total seat time at about 18 hours - the same as the in-person course.
Development