The Learning Systems Review is a structured diagnostic. It examines what you already have — source material, learners, platform, curriculum, assessments, governance, accessibility posture, and the deadlines you are working to — and produces a written decision document. It is not a sales call with an assessment label on it. The recommendation is written so it remains useful to you whether or not any further work follows.

The shape of the situation is consistent: the knowledge exists, the material exists, and the deadline exists, but the decision about scope, modality, and sequence has not been made. The Review makes that decision explicit and puts the reasoning on paper.

What is reviewed

Source material condition. What exists, what version is current, what is accurate, what is orphaned, and what must be rebuilt rather than repaired.
Learner population and roles. Who is actually in scope, what they need to be able to do, and where role requirements differ by site, shift, or seniority.
Platform and LMS state. What the system is currently being used for, what it can enforce, what it reports, and where it is holding files rather than running a programme.
Curriculum and assessments. Whether the sequence teaches capability, whether assessment evidences it, and where assessment confirms attendance only.
Governance and ownership. Who owns each asset, who approves changes, what the review cycle is, and what happens when a policy or product changes.
Accessibility posture. Current state against the standards you name. The Review supports accessibility improvement and alignment with agreed standards. It does not certify compliance.
Delivery constraints and deadlines. Fixed dates, audit windows, shift patterns, connectivity, language, device, and the availability of subject-matter experts.

Source materials accepted

Send what you have in the state it is in. Decks, manuals, policies, standard operating procedures, work instructions, session recordings, transcripts, screenshots, job aids, half-built authoring-tool project files, and LMS exports including SCORM packages and completion reports. Incomplete and inconsistent material is expected. It is evidence, not a problem to tidy up beforehand.

What is required from you

A shared folder containing the source material, or an export of it.
Read-only platform access, or exported reports if access cannot be granted.
Time with the person accountable for the training outcome.
A short set of interviews with subject-matter experts and, where relevant, instructors. The interview set is agreed in advance so the demand on your people is bounded.
Sight of the delivery calendar and any fixed dates.

What you receive

A written findings document describing the current state in plain language. A prioritised risk and gap list, ordered by consequence rather than by ease of fixing. A recommended path with explicit modality reasoning — why eLearning, classroom, self-study, instructor-led, or on-the-job, and why not the alternatives. A scope and sequencing outline for that path. And an explicit statement of what IETERNUS would not take on, with the reason.

That last item matters. A recommendation with no exclusions is a sales document.

The decision after the Review

The Review ends in a choice, made by you. Commission a Build project to produce the system. Move to an Operate engagement to keep it assigned, current, measurable, and governed. Set up a Partner arrangement if you hold the client relationship and need controlled capacity behind it. Or do nothing further and keep the plan — it is yours, it is written to be executed by whoever you choose, and it does not depend on us.

Confidentiality and data handling

No learner personal data is required to run the Review, and it should not be sent. Where reports are needed, aggregate or anonymised extracts are sufficient. Source material is treated as confidential and used only to produce your findings document. Nothing from the engagement — your name, your material, or your findings — is published, quoted, or used as an example without your written permission.

What this is not

It is not an LMS selection or procurement exercise. It is not a compliance audit or a legal opinion. It is not a content-volume estimate produced without looking at the material.

Who it is for

L&D teams under delivery pressure
training and custom-learning agencies
operations, safety, and compliance leads
HR and people development leads
product enablement teams
programme sponsors deciding whether to build or buy

Problems this solves

Subject-matter expertise sits with a few people and has never been written down in a usable form
Training content exists in decks, manuals, and shared drives, but nobody can say what the current version is
Delivery varies by instructor, site, and shift, so outcomes are inconsistent
The LMS holds files and completion records rather than a governed programme
Assessments confirm attendance rather than capability
No single owner is accountable for keeping the material current
A deadline is fixed and the internal decision about scope, modality, and sequence has not been made

What you get

Written findings document covering the current state in plain language
Source material inventory with a condition rating for each item
Learner population and role map, including who is actually in scope
Platform and delivery constraints summary
Curriculum and assessment gap analysis
Governance and ownership map showing who maintains what
Accessibility posture note against the standards you name
Prioritised risk and gap list, ordered by consequence
Recommended path with explicit modality reasoning
Scope and sequencing outline for the recommended path
Explicit statement of what IETERNUS would not take on
Decision summary naming the Build, Operate, Partner, or no-action routes

How the work runs

The Review runs in a fixed sequence: source material is collected and inventoried, then a short set of agreed interviews establishes how the training is currently produced, delivered, and maintained. Platform state, curriculum, assessments, governance, and accessibility posture are examined against the delivery constraints and deadlines you are working to. Findings are written up as a document, not presented as slides, so the reasoning can be read, challenged, and circulated internally without us in the room. Commercial terms for the Review are agreed in writing before the Review begins.

A good fit when

You have real source material — decks, manuals, SOPs, policies, recordings, part-built courses — and need a decision about what to do with it
A deadline, audit, product launch, or regulatory change is forcing the question
Someone internal can be named as the owner of the training outcome
You want a written recommendation you can act on with or without us
You are choosing between building internally, buying, and subcontracting, and want the reasoning documented

Not a fit when

You want a proposal and a price without a diagnostic — the Review is the diagnostic, and skipping it means guessing at scope
There is no source material and no subject-matter expert available to interview, so there is nothing to review
You need an LMS selected, procured, configured, or supported as a platform — IETERNUS is not an LMS vendor
You need a written guarantee of legal, regulatory, or accessibility compliance — no review can issue that, and IETERNUS is not a regulator, law firm, or certification body
You want bulk course generation at the lowest possible unit cost

Where this sits: Build — turn fragmented knowledge into complete learning systems · All services

Learning topic: SME and Stakeholder Discovery