| Course | D353 Strategic Training and Development |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 3 |
| Paper type | Implementation and evaluation plan |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | BS Human Resource Management |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for D353 Task 3
Did the Training Solve More Calls? An Implementation and Four-Level Evaluation Plan for the Troubleshooting and Customer Conversation Program at a Composite Internet Provider's Contact Centers
Student Name
School of Business, Western Governors University
D353: Strategic Training and Development, Task 3
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Did the Training Solve More Calls? An Implementation and Four-Level Evaluation Plan for the Troubleshooting and Customer Conversation Program at a Composite Internet Provider's Contact Centers
Purpose
Cascade Connect, a composite regional internet provider, has designed a four-week training program followed by six weeks of coached calls to close the gap in first-contact resolution between its new and experienced customer service representatives. This plan explains how the program will be implemented across two contact centers and how its effectiveness will be measured. The central question is not whether trainees enjoyed the program but whether customers' problems are solved on the first call more often, and whether new representatives stay.
Implementation Roles
The director of training and development owns the program, its budget and its results. Two trainers deliver the classroom and simulation weeks. Experienced representatives, selected for high quality scores and interest, serve as practice customers in the lab and as side-by-side coaches in week four; they receive a stipend and a coaching workshop. Team leads carry the coaching phase, meeting each trainee weekly over a pair of recorded calls from week five to week ten. The contact center managers protect team leads' coaching time and hold team leads accountable for it. IT maintains the practice environment of the customer system, and the quality team scores calls using the same rubric used in training.
Rollout Timeline
Month one: prepare. Trainers finish materials and simulation scenarios, IT builds the practice environment, team leads attend a four-hour coaching workshop, and the quality team calibrates its scoring with trainers so that everyone rates calls the same way.
Months two and three: pilot. The first cohort of 12 new hires at the larger center goes through the program. Trainers and team leads meet weekly to fix problems, such as scenarios that are too easy or too hard.
Month four: review and revise. The pilot's learning and early behavior results are reviewed, and the program is adjusted.
Months five through twelve: scale. The revised program runs for every new hire cohort at both centers, about one cohort a month.
Month thirteen: annual review of results against the business measures, reported to the vice president of customer operations.
Supporting Transfer to the Job
Training succeeds only if trainees use what they learned on real calls. A meta-analysis of research on transfer of training found that transfer was related to trainee characteristics, such as ability and motivation, and to the work environment, including support from supervisors and peers (Blume et al., 2010). The implementation therefore builds in support after the classroom. Team leads reinforce the troubleshooting sequence in weekly call reviews, trainees keep the five-step card at their desks, the knowledge base team fixes the outdated articles that the needs assessment found, and a monthly peer session lets new representatives share difficult calls. Research on training also emphasizes that what happens after training, including opportunities to practice and supportive supervisors, strongly influences whether it produces results (Salas et al., 2012).
Evaluation at Four Levels
The evaluation follows the four levels widely used to judge training: reaction, learning, behavior and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Level 1, reaction: at the end of each week, trainees complete a five-question survey on relevance, realism of practice and confidence. Target: an average of at least 4 on a 5-point scale. Reaction data are used mainly to improve delivery, since enjoying training does not guarantee learning.
Level 2, learning: trainees complete scored simulated calls and role-plays against the program's objectives. Targets: at least 8 of 10 troubleshooting scenarios resolved correctly, and at least 4 of 5 on clarity and de-escalation rubric items, by the end of week three.
Level 3, behavior: during weeks five through ten and again at month six, the quality team scores four recorded live calls per trainee using the same rubric, and the call system records whether the troubleshooting steps were documented. Target: the troubleshooting sequence followed on at least 85% of connectivity calls.
Level 4, results: the business measures the program exists to move, namely how often calls are resolved the first time, how long they take, how many customers call back within a week and how many new representatives are still employed after six months. Targets: first-contact resolution of at least 72% by week ten and 78% by month six, and six-month retention rising from 65% to 80%.
Comparing Results Fairly
To judge whether results come from the training rather than other changes, the evaluation will compare each new cohort with representatives hired in the three previous cohorts, measured at the same point in their tenure, and during the pilot, compare the pilot cohort at the larger center with the cohort hired at the smaller center under the old program. Seasonal call volume and network outages will be noted, since both affect resolution rates.
Risks to Implementation
Three risks could undermine the program, and each has a response. First, coaching time may be squeezed when call volume spikes, which is exactly when new representatives most need support; contact center managers have agreed that coaching hours will be protected except during declared network outages, and missed sessions will be rescheduled within the week. Second, experienced representatives serving as practice customers and side-by-side coaches may burn out; the role rotates among a pool of 16 volunteers so that no one serves more than one cohort in three. Third, the quality team and trainers may score calls differently, which would make behavior data unreliable; both groups will score the same five recorded calls each quarter and discuss any differences before scoring cohort calls. The training director will review these risks monthly with the contact center managers, so that problems are fixed while a cohort is still in the program rather than discovered in the annual review.
Reporting and Using Results
The training director will send a one-page dashboard to contact center managers every month showing each cohort's results at all four levels. A full report after the pilot and after 12 months will include the cost of the program and an estimate of its return: each percentage point of improvement in first-contact resolution avoids roughly 2,800 repeat calls a year, and each new representative retained saves about $6,500 in hiring and training costs. Results that fall short will lead to specific changes, such as more lab practice for a weak objective or more coaching time where behavior does not transfer.
Conclusion
The implementation plan assigns clear roles, pilots the program before scaling it and supports transfer through coaching and fixes to the work environment. The evaluation measures reactions and learning but judges the program by whether representatives use the skills on real calls and whether more customers' problems are solved the first time, with comparisons that make those results credible.
References
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065-1105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74-101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661
What the D353 Task 3 instructions ask
The third D353 task asks you to plan implementation and evaluation for the training designed in Task 2. You usually assign roles, set a rollout timeline, explain how you will support transfer of learning to the job, describe evaluation at several levels, plan a fair comparison, identify risks and explain who receives the results and what they will change. Evaluators look for named owners for each part of the program and a timeline that pilots before scaling. Transfer deserves real attention, since training that is not used on the job produces no results, and research on transfer should shape the plan. Evaluation should set targets at each level. A comparison group helps show that results come from training rather than other changes. Risks need responses, and reporting should reach the people who decide.
How this D353 Task 3 example is built
The plan opens by restating the program and the gap it closes. A roles section names the training director as owner and describes what trainers, peer coaches and team leads each do. The rollout timeline moves from a month of preparation, including a coaching workshop and scoring calibration, to a two-month pilot and then expansion. A transfer section draws on a meta-analysis linking transfer to trainee traits and supervisor support, and explains the protected coaching hours. Evaluation follows four levels with a target for each, from a weekly reaction survey to first-contact resolution. A comparison section sets new cohorts against earlier ones at the same tenure. Three risks with responses and a reporting plan with monthly dashboards close the document.
Where the D353 Task 3 rubric puts the marks
The D353 Task 3 rubric rates aspects competent, approaching competence or not evident. A roles aspect asks for clear responsibility for delivery, coaching and results. The timeline aspect looks for a logical sequence, and graders tend to reward a pilot run before the full rollout. A transfer aspect rewards specific supports for applying skills on the job, grounded in research. Evaluation aspects want measures and targets at more than one level. The comparison aspect checks for a way to separate training effects from other causes. A risks aspect expects likely problems named with responses. The reporting aspect asks how results reach decision makers and change the program. Professional writing and APA citations are scored too, including the evaluation framework you use.
D353 Task 3 help: what sends it back
Implementation plans lose marks when roles are listed without responsibilities. Say who does what and who answers for results. Timelines sometimes launch everywhere at once; a pilot shows evaluators you plan to learn before scaling. Transfer is the most frequent gap, because many papers end at the classroom door, so describe coaching, reminders or job aids that carry skills onto the job. Evaluation plans may name levels without targets, which makes success impossible to judge. Comparisons can be missing entirely; use earlier cohorts or a second site. Risks tend to be generic, such as low engagement, when evaluators want risks specific to your setting with a response for each. Close with how results will change the program, not only how they will be reported.
Get a D353 Task 3 example written to your instructions
Send the task instructions and rubric aspects from your D353 course of study. We write a custom implementation and evaluation plan to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
More D353 papers
Other Business (BS) sample papers
- D369 Task 1 Comprehensive Financial Analysis
- D177 Task 2 Brand Crisis Recovery Plan
- D640 Task 1 Feedback Reflection and Plan
- D649 Task 2 Crisis Communication Plan
D353 Task 3 questions, answered
What is training transfer in D353?
Using learned skills on the job. The sample supports transfer with protected coaching hours for team leads, side-by-side coaching in week four and fixes to the knowledge base that representatives use on live calls.
How is D353 training evaluated?
At four levels: reaction, learning, behavior and results. The sample sets a target for each, from average survey scores to first-contact resolution, and compares new cohorts with earlier ones.
Is the D353 Task 3 company real?
No. Cascade Connect is the same composite used in Tasks 1 and 2. The research on transfer and training evaluation is real, and your plan should implement the training you designed yourself.
Why pilot the program in D353 Task 3?
A pilot shows whether the program works before the full cost is spent. The sample runs one cohort of 12 at the larger center and compares it with a cohort hired at the smaller center.
Where can I find a free D353 Task 3 sample paper?
The implementation and evaluation plan appears above with notes beside each section. Share your training plan, and your first custom D353 Task 3 paper is written free.