The capabilities that matter most in professional environments cannot be transmitted as information. We assess whether the programme develops these capabilities directly, or whether it teaches frameworks that describe good judgement without building it. 

• Does the programme require learners to make actual decisions under conditions of uncertainty?
• Are the decisions the programme asks learners to make anywhere close to the difficulty of the decisions they’ll face at work?
• When the programme covers judgement-heavy topics, does it develop judgement, or does it explain what good judgement looks like?

Realistic situations reveal capability in ways explanation cannot. We assess whether the programme places learners inside situations that mirror the complexity of real work, or whether it explains that complexity from the outside. 

• Do the scenarios in the programme reflect the actual complexity, ambiguity, and competing pressures of the work?
• Are learners required to act inside the scenario, or observe and comment on it?
• Do scenarios include the human dynamics that make real situations hard, such as stakeholder tension, incomplete information, time pressure?

Completion tells you who showed up. Capability tells you what changed. We assess whether the programme measures the difference between what learners could do before and what they can do after, or whether success is defined by participation. 

• What does the programme actually measure, and does that measure track to on-the-job performance?
• Would a learner who completed the programme perform observably differently in front of the work than one who didn’t?
• Are managers ever asked to verify that behaviour has changed, or does measurement stop at the learner’s self-report?

Much of what determines effectiveness in professional environments is never written down: the unwritten rules, the political dynamics, the tacit judgements about when to speak and when to hold back. We assess whether the programme surfaces this hidden curriculum for learners who don’t already have access to it, or whether it assumes people will pick it up somehow. 

• Does the programme name and address the tacit knowledge that determines success in this role, or does it stick to the explicit skills?
• Are learners from different backgrounds given equal access to the unwritten rules, or is the programme designed for people who already know them?
• Does the programme create space to examine what’s happening beneath the surface of a situation, not just the surface itself?

AI now produces, on demand, most of the declarative knowledge training programmes have traditionally transmitted. Human value is shifting to the capabilities AI cannot replicate. We assess whether the programme is building those capabilities, or optimising for the kind of knowledge AI now gives away. 

• If a capable AI were given the same content this programme delivers, could it produce a comparable output?
• Does the programme develop the specifically human capabilities that AI cannot replace, such as contextual judgement, ethical reasoning and holistic problem-solving?
• Would completing this programme make learners more valuable in an AI-augmented workplace, or more replaceable?

A free assessment would attract volume rather than intent. We want the assessment to reach decision-makers who are genuinely engaged with the question of whether their training is doing the work. A £100 fee sits below almost every expense threshold and can go on a credit card without procurement, but it filters out casual applications in a way that free cannot.

The full £100 is donated to Shelter, the housing and homelessness charity. Nothing is retained by Ding.

Any workplace training programme where the intended outcome involves people making judgement calls, adapting to situations, or exercising professional capability. This includes leadership development, customer-facing training, conduct and regulatory programmes, and applied technical training. It does not include pure content transfer such as onboarding or systems training, where completion is a legitimate measure.

The training materials themselves, including any learner-facing content, facilitator guides, assessment approaches, and success measures currently used. If the programme is delivered live rather than digitally, we ask for a recorded session or observation opportunity. We will confirm exactly what’s needed after you apply.

That is your decision. Some clients use the assessment as evidence to make an internal case for change. Some commission Ding to redesign the programme or build something new. Some conclude their current approach is doing the work and take no further action. The assessment is not a route to a preselected solution.

All training materials and assessment findings are treated as confidential. We operate under NDA where required. Findings are not shared beyond the Ding team assessing your programme and the client contact.