How we work
Two teams. One programme.
Every Unscripted programme is built in two equally important parts. Our content team designs it around your people and your goals. Our trainers bring it to life in the room. You pay one price for both, and you can see the work behind it.
The two parts of every programme
Great delivery needs great design behind it
Most clients only ever see the trainer. But what happens in the room is decided weeks earlier, by people who study your teams, set the learning goals and build every activity.
Part 1 · Delivery
Our trainers, in your room
- Vetted, experienced trainers local to your city, named in your proposal
- Theatre-based programmes run only by trainers certified in our method
- Fully briefed on your programme through a recorded train-the-trainer before the day
- The same trainer runs your 30, 60 and 90-day follow-ups
- Rated by participants and by you after every session
Part 2 · Content
Our content team, behind the scenes
- A needs analysis: what the problem is, and what success looks like to you
- Learning objectives written with Bloom’s taxonomy, aimed at doing, not just knowing
- Built with ADDIE, in short draft-test-improve loops so you see it early
- Scenarios, role plays and case studies written from your workplace
- An evaluation plan from day one, measuring behaviour and results, not just smiles
One price, two kinds of expertise. Your proposal shows the work that goes into designing your programme and the work of delivering it, so you can see exactly what you are paying for.
The hidden work
What one hour in the room really takes
43hours behind every hour
Design and development time for one hour of instructor-led training
On average, organisations spend about 43 hours designing and developing each hour of classroom training, from analysis and objectives to activities, materials and facilitator notes. Simple content sits near 22 hours; complex, customised programmes reach 82.
Source: Chapman Alliance, “How long does it take to create learning?”, survey of 249 organisations, 2010.
How we design · ADDIE
The backbone of instructional design, run at today’s speed
ADDIE was developed at Florida State University in the 1970s and remains the foundation of most instructional design models used today. We follow its five phases for every programme.
- AnalyseWe start from your core problem and what success looks like, then find the causes. Sometimes the answer is not training at all, and we will tell you.
- DesignClear objectives for each level of your people, the flow of the day, and how we will measure change.
- DevelopScenarios, role plays, activities, participant materials and a detailed facilitator guide.
- ImplementA recorded train-the-trainer, then delivery by your named trainer, in person or online.
- EvaluateFeedback on the day, then behaviour checks at 30, 60 and 90 days, and a free refresher if scores have not moved.
Is ADDIE out of date? Run strictly in sequence, it can be slow. So we keep its discipline but work the way modern design teams do, in short build-test-improve loops, the idea behind the Successive Approximation Model (SAM). You see a working draft early, and we refine it with you.
How we set goals · Bloom’s taxonomy
From knowing to doing
Bloom’s taxonomy, revised in 2001, describes six levels of learning, each building on the last. Many programmes stop at the first two. Ours are designed to reach the levels where behaviour changes. Here is how one skill, giving feedback, climbs the levels.
What the research says
Why we practise, and why we measure
People learn more by doing than by listening
A review of 225 studies found that students taught by lecture alone were 1.5 times more likely to fail than students in courses with active learning, and active learning raised exam scores by about 6%. The studies were in university science courses, but the principle carries into every training room: people learn by doing.
Source: Freeman and others, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014.
The measures that matter most are used least
The Kirkpatrick model measures training at four levels: reaction, learning, behaviour and results. 92% of organisations measure reaction, yet only 36% of them rate it as highly valuable. Behaviour and results are rated most valuable, by 75%. So we build behaviour and results checks into every programme, at 30, 60 and 90 days.
Source: ASTD and i4cp, “The Value of Evaluation”, survey of 704 business, HR and learning leaders, 2009.
Learning does not end when the session does
The 70-20-10 guide, from research with successful executives, suggests most development comes from experience and other people, not courses. It is a rule of thumb rather than an exact ratio, but it is why our programmes end with real habits to practise at work, manager involvement and follow-ups.
Source: Lombardo and Eichinger, Center for Creative Leadership, 1996.
Our toolkit
The models our content team works with
No single model does everything. We combine the ones that are proven and widely used across the learning profession.
Five phases from analysis to evaluation. The structure behind every programme we build.
Six levels of learning that shape our objectives, activities and checks.
The Successive Approximation Model: short design loops with early drafts you can test.
Four levels of evaluation, plus return on investment, to show whether training worked.
A proven sequence for each session, from gaining attention to helping learning stick.
Start from the business goal and teach only what changes what people do.
Theatre-based training
Leadership, rehearsed
Actors rehearse before opening night. Pilots train in simulators. Yet managers are expected to handle their hardest conversations with no practice at all. Theatre-based training gives them a safe stage to try, fail, rewind and try again.
A short scene from your workplace plays out. The audience stops it, steps in and changes what happens.
The manager plays the team member, and feels the conversation from the other side.
We freeze a scene, look at what just happened, and replay it a better way.
Participants bring a real situation they face and rehearse it with coaching.
Teams compete across activities and quizzes, so energy and attention stay high all day.
Every activity ends by turning what happened into one simple habit to use at work.
Teams formed, names chosen, voices and bodies loosened.
A real workplace moment, played out in front of the group.
Participants stop the scene and try a different approach.
Everyone practises in pairs and small groups, with feedback.
What changed, why it worked, and the habit to take back.
A review of 47 studies found that drama-based teaching had a positive, significant effect on learning outcomes.
Lee, Patall, Cawthon and Steingut, Review of Educational Research, 2015A review of behaviour modelling training found large effects on skills, and stronger use at work when people set specific goals and their managers are involved too.
Taylor, Russ-Eft and Chan, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2005Theatre-based programmes are delivered only by trainers certified in the Unscripted method. See our trainings →
Start with a conversation
Tell us the problem. We will design the answer.
Thirty minutes, free. We ask what you want to change, what success looks like and what budget you have, and we tell you honestly what we would do.
Sources
- Chapman Alliance (2010). How long does it take to create learning? Survey of 249 organisations.
- Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. Springer.
- Allen, M. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM. ASTD Press.
- Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
- Freeman, S. and others (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS 111(23).
- ASTD and i4cp (2009). The Value of Evaluation: Making Training Evaluations More Effective.
- Lombardo, M. M. and Eichinger, R. W. (1996). The Career Architect Development Planner. Lominger.
- Lee, B. K., Patall, E. A., Cawthon, S. W. and Steingut, R. R. (2015). The effect of drama-based pedagogy on PreK–16 outcomes: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 85(1).
- Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F. and Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(4).
- Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of the Oppressed. Forum theatre.
Figures describe published research. They are not a promise of specific results for your team.