Executive Case Study — Lead Evaluator & Training Lead
Western Governors University
I led the people, process, training, quality-assurance, and change-management components of a distributed evaluation operation — 60+ evaluators evaluating more than 20,000 papers a year for 1,000+ adult learners on the Curriculum path in the School of Education — through multiple course-redevelopment cycles. The mandate: adopt redesigned assessment standards without losing calibration, quality, or the student experience. I ran it as organizational change, not a training event, and governed it end-to-end with the OASIS™ Project Leadership Framework.
Program Snapshot
Outcomes from a delivered, multi-sprint change initiative
The Most Significant Leadership Decision
Rather than run a one-time training, I built an operational readiness system — and treated the redevelopment as organizational change, not a course to deliver.
That reframe turned a training rollout into a governed change initiative spanning calibration, onboarding, quality assurance, data, and stakeholder alignment — protecting quality across 20,000+ annual evaluations while the standards underneath them changed. It shaped every system, cadence, and metric that followed.
The Business Case
WGU runs a large competency-based model serving adult learners, which depends on consistent, accurate, timely evaluation of student work. When redevelopment introduced new assessment requirements and scoring expectations, the danger wasn't the standards themselves — it was 60+ evaluators interpreting them differently across more than 20,000 papers a year.
I owned the implementation strategy end-to-end — training systems, calibration, onboarding redesign, stakeholder communication, and quality monitoring — balancing organizational goals against evaluator readiness and a consistent learner experience.
Strategic Risks Managed
Without calibration, inconsistent scoring erodes confidence in evaluation outcomes.
Teams had to adopt new processes while still meeting production and quality metrics.
Misalignment between course design and evaluation could hurt learner progression.
Success required coordinated communication, training, engagement, and support.
Approach — OASIS™ Applied
Observe
Analyzed redevelopment requirements and course-redesign expectations, identified training needs, and mapped stakeholders across evaluators, coaches, instructors, SMEs, and leadership to surface where calibration and readiness gaps actually lived.
Align
Set scoring expectations and evaluation standards with course instructors and SMEs, defined readiness indicators and KPI targets, and built the communication plan that kept leadership, supervisors, and evaluator teams pointed at the same outcomes.
Strategize
Built a sprint-based implementation model with a pilot-first sequence, a training governance calendar, onboarding pathways for new hires, and a risk log to manage readiness, calibration, and quality risks before they became issues.
Implement
Stood up a centralized OneNote Learning Operations Hub, delivered evaluator training and calibration exercises, ran PLC sessions and one-on-one coaching, and used Power BI dashboards plus root-cause analysis to act on performance trends as they appeared.
Sustain
Reviewed implementation and calibration data, refined onboarding and training materials each sprint, and institutionalized the calibration protocol, QA dashboards, and resource libraries so future redevelopment cycles inherit a working system rather than starting over.
Major Decisions Made
This section is not about tasks — it is about judgment. Each decision is paired with the tradeoff it managed: what would have happened if we had chosen differently.
Project Artifacts
Strong programs are sustained through systems, not just outputs. These are the operational, training, communication, and quality artifacts I designed to support evaluator readiness, change adoption, and evaluation consistency across the operation. Open any one to view it.
Outcomes & Impact
Success was measured by whether quality and consistency held while the standards underneath the operation changed — and whether the work left a system behind. It did.
Learning Operations
Quality Assurance
Stakeholder Alignment
Student Experience
Organizational Impact
Operational Scale
Data-Informed Decisions
A Repeatable System
Director-Level Scope
This was not a training project. It was an organizational change and operational-improvement effort that balanced quality, consistency, efficiency, student outcomes, change adoption, and operational performance — simultaneously — inside a high-volume academic operation.
Program Complexity Factors
Evaluators operating across multiple locations and schedules.
Evaluating 20,000+ papers a year for 1,000+ adult learners in the School of Education.
Evaluator readiness and adoption managed through multiple redevelopment cycles.
Instructors, evaluators, supervisors, managers, leadership, and quality teams.
Quality, consistency, efficiency, outcomes, adoption, and performance — balanced at once.
Leadership Competencies Demonstrated
Strategic Leadership
Redefined evaluator training from a one-time event into an operational readiness system.
Stakeholder Leadership
Aligned evaluators, instructors, supervisors, and leadership through implementation.
Operational Leadership
Analyzed KPI, calibration, and timing metrics to find improvement opportunities.
Change Leadership
Led readiness efforts supporting large-scale adoption of redesigned standards.
Lessons Learned & Leadership Evolution
A one-time rollout could not hold calibration once evaluators returned to live, high-volume work under new standards.
The shift: from "deliver the training" to "build operational readiness."
Interpretation drifts as edge cases appear; consistency has to be maintained, not declared.
The shift: a standing calibration protocol, not a single norming session.
KPIs, calibration trends, and root-cause reviews separated curriculum issues from evaluation issues.
The shift: evidence over anecdote when deciding what to fix.
Scattered guidance guarantees version drift; one maintained hub keeps everyone calibrated to the same materials.
The shift: centralize the knowledge, then govern it.
Change held because communication was structured, multi-channel, and relentless — not because it was announced once.
The shift: communication built for ongoing alignment, not a kickoff.
What I would do differently
The one thing I would not change
Running redevelopment as organizational change rather than a training task. Everything else could be refined — that framing is why quality held.
The OASIS™ Mindset
"I solve systems, not symptoms."
When I meet a challenge, my first question is not "what training do we need?" — it is "what system is producing this outcome?" The OASIS™ Framework is how that instinct becomes repeatable: a way of thinking, leading, and solving that endures beyond any single project.
Understand before acting — current state, root causes, constraints.
Create shared understanding and genuine commitment.
Develop intentional solutions grounded in evidence.
Execute with transparency, adaptability, and accountability.
Build systems that endure beyond implementation.
What stakeholders can expect: I create clarity where there is uncertainty, alignment where priorities conflict, and structure where complexity grows. I communicate honestly, decide intentionally, and favor long-term value over short-term activity.
The most meaningful contributions I make are rarely individual deliverables. They are the systems, structures, and standards that keep creating value long after a project ends.
The WGU initiative reflects how I lead: reframing the problem, aligning stakeholders, and building governed systems that last. Let's turn your complexity into clarity.
Artifact 01 · WGU-EVL-01
A centralized OneNote knowledge system — the single source of truth for onboarding, redevelopment, calibration, and ongoing development.
Give every evaluator one place for training resources, implementation guidance, calibration materials, communication updates, and support documentation — so the team works from the same standards rather than scattered emails and decks.
A maintained hub reduces scoring variability and accelerates readiness for new evaluators — turning onboarding from a person-dependent handoff into a repeatable system.
Note: Shown as a structured summary of the notebook's architecture; the live OneNote hub and screenshots (homepage, course structure, resource library) are available on request.
Artifact 02 · WGU-EVL-01
Implementation visibility and accountability — the sprint cadence that kept training, calibration, and rollout on track.
Set expectations and align the team on the redesigned standards.
Deliver redevelopment training against the new requirements.
Verify consistent interpretation before live application.
Validate readiness with a pilot group before broad rollout.
Roll out to all teams and monitor performance.
Note: Demonstrates phased implementation rather than one-shot delivery; structure shown is representative of the monthly redevelopment calendars used to manage rollout.
Artifact 03 · WGU-EVL-01
The structured process that kept 60+ evaluators applying redesigned standards uniformly.
The Calibration Cycle
Evaluators score shared sample submissions against the redesigned rubric.
Score variance is analyzed to locate where interpretation diverges.
The team reviews differences together and agrees on consistent application.
Course instructors confirm scoring reflects instructional intent.
The cycle repeats on a cadence so consistency is maintained, not assumed.
Note: Inconsistent interpretation of evaluation criteria directly threatens student outcomes, reliability, and stakeholder confidence — this framework is the control that managed that risk.
Artifact 04 · WGU-EVL-01
The multi-channel cadence that drove stakeholder engagement and change adoption.
| Audience | Channel | Cadence | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Academic Leadership | Leadership meetings | Monthly | Direction, decisions & risk visibility |
| Supervisors & Managers | Team meetings | Weekly | Progress, blockers & coordination |
| Evaluators | PLC sessions | Bi-weekly | Calibration, training & practice |
| Individual Evaluators | One-on-one coaching | As needed | Performance support & readiness |
| Course Instructors | Alignment meetings | Per cycle | Evaluation–instruction alignment |
| All Stakeholders | Video updates & doc repository | Ongoing | Async reference & transparency |
Note: Channels and cadence are representative of the communication plan used during implementation; adjust frequency to match your operating rhythm.
Artifact 05 · WGU-EVL-01
Using data to improve evaluator effectiveness and operational performance.
Note: Summarizes the analytical approach and outputs; underlying reports (assessment-time analysis, KPI reviews, operational trend reports) are available on request.
Artifact 06 · WGU-EVL-01
Timely, data-driven visibility into evaluator performance and organizational effectiveness.
Note: Shown as the set of indicators the dashboards monitored; live Power BI dashboards and KPI tracking reports are available on request.
Artifact 07 · WGU-EVL-01
The diagnostic framework that separated curriculum issues from evaluation issues.
The Review Process
Course instructors, evaluators, supervisors, and leadership examine the data together.
Structured analysis distinguishes instruction, assessment, and evaluation factors.
Findings inform targeted recommendations and continuous-improvement actions.
Note: This framework kept improvement efforts aimed at the real cause — preventing "fix the training" responses to problems that originated in course design, and vice versa.