| Course | GB542 Strategic Talent Development and Organizational Learning |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Development program design |
| Length | About 970 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB542 Unit 5
Thirty-Six Weeks That End at Startup: A Unit 5 Development Program Design for Continuous-Process Technicians
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB542: Strategic Talent Development and Organizational Learning
Unit 5 Development Program Design
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The company, its operators and every hour and cost are composite and illustrative; the transfer and evaluation frameworks and the sources cited are real.
1. Audience
The participants are experienced batch operators. Most have run batch reactors at the Indiana plant for ten years or more, know the chemistry of the company's epoxies and urethanes by feel, and are trusted by supervisors to judge when a batch is ready. Few have worked from distributed control screens, where a process is managed through trend displays and alarms instead of sight and touch. Several are within a few years of retirement, and some may prefer to stay on the batch line; any operator may apply, and selection rests on a structured interview and a basic process-control aptitude exercise. Participants are paid their normal wage for program hours.
2. Objectives
Objectives are written as performances on the new line, so that each can be observed and tested.
Alarm response. Given a high-viscosity alarm, the technician acknowledges it and begins the correct response within ninety seconds, following the line's response standard.
Drift detection. Given live trend displays, the technician identifies a drift in feed ratio or temperature before it triggers an alarm.
Grade changeover. The technician completes a product changeover by procedure with off-specification output below the line's target.
Startup and shutdown. The technician starts and shuts down the line by procedure, including a safe shutdown after a feed pump failure.
Handover. The technician gives a shift handover that a receiving technician can act on without asking questions.
3. Structure
Each participant spends sixteen hours a week in the program for 36 weeks, 576 hours in all, and the rest of the week on the batch line. Time is divided roughly as follows.
Weeks 1 to 10: foundations. Classroom instruction on process control, instrumentation and the line's design, about 115 hours across the program, most of it here, with first sessions on the vendor simulator.
Weeks 11 to 22: simulation. About 30 percent of program time, roughly 173 hours, is spent on a vendor simulator that mirrors the line's control screens. Scenarios increase in difficulty from normal operation to alarms, drift and equipment failures.
Weeks 23 to 36: pilot line. About half of program time, roughly 288 hours, is spent on the company's pilot continuous mixer beside a qualified coach, at a ratio of one coach to three participants. Coaches are the equipment vendor's commissioning technicians and two experienced continuous-process leads hired from outside.
Two cohorts of 11 run in sequence. The first finishes in the week before the line starts and staffs two crews. The second starts when the first finishes and staffs the remaining two crews once it is complete.
4. Transfer Design
Baldwin and Ford (1988) identify three groups of factors that determine whether training carries over to the job: the characteristics of trainees, the design of training and the work environment that trainees return to. A later meta-analysis found that the work environment, especially support from supervisors, is among the strongest predictors of transfer (Blume et al., 2010). The design addresses all three.
Trainee characteristics. Motivation to transfer is highest when participants see how the training serves them. Each participant's interview covers why the operator wants the role, and the higher pay set in the Unit 3 memo is announced before the program starts. Operators who doubt their computer skills receive a short preparatory module before week one.
Training design. The simulator and pilot line reproduce the actual control screens, alarms and procedures, so participants practice the same responses they will use. Grossman and Salas (2011) identify realistic practice with feedback as one of the design features most consistently linked to transfer. Each simulator session ends with a debrief that compares the participant's response with the standard.
Work environment. Training ends one week before startup, so there is no gap in which skills fade. The plant's shift supervisors attend a two-day briefing on the program and are responsible for assigning new technicians to tasks that use their skills during the first month. Coaches stay on each crew for the first six weeks of operation, and every alarm response in that period is reviewed at the end of the shift.
Training that ends months before a line starts teaches people to forget, so the most important design decision in this program is its end date.
5. Measurement
Measurement is planned before the program starts, at four levels (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Reaction. At the close of every phase, participants answer a brief questionnaire asking whether the content was relevant and the practice realistic.
Learning. A scenario test on the simulator is given before week one and after week 36, scoring responses to ten standard scenarios.
Behavior. During the first three months of operation, alarm events are audited against the response standard, comparing trained crews with crews whose members are still waiting for the second cohort.
Results. Off-specification output and unplanned downtime are compared between the same crews, with data collected before the program to allow a fair comparison. These measures feed the Unit 9 evaluation.
6. Cost
Costs are given per cohort, since the first cohort's costs will be compared with its results.
Participants' wages for program hours: 11 participants, 576 hours each, costed at $34 per hour with benefits, $215,424.
Coach time: 1,056 coaching hours at $52, $54,912.
Simulator licensing and vendor support: $68,000.
Classroom instruction: 115 hours at $145, $16,675.
Program design, half of the total charged to each cohort: $42,000.
Evaluation, scenario tests and materials: $26,369.
Total per cohort: $423,380. Both cohorts together cost $846,760.
References
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 63-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x
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
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00373.x
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.
GB542 Unit 5 instructions, in plain terms
In GB542 Unit 5 you design a development program for a specific group of employees. Profile the audience, including what they already know and what is new to them. Write objectives as observable performances in the job. Lay out the program's structure with week ranges and the share of time in each kind of learning, explaining the proportions. Give transfer of training its own section, organized by a transfer model from your readings, and show how each factor shapes a design choice. Plan measurement in advance at several levels. Close with a budget that includes participants' time. Roughly eight pages is typical; cite the transfer and evaluation literature in APA 7 and show how the program serves the strategy.
Inside the GB542 Unit 5 example
The audience section describes experienced batch operators who know the chemistry by feel but have little control-screen experience, with selection open to all through an interview and an aptitude exercise. Five objectives run from alarm response to handover. Weeks 1 to 10 cover foundations, weeks 11 to 22 the simulator and weeks 23 to 36 the pilot line with one coach for three participants. The transfer section applies Baldwin and Ford, Blume and colleagues, and Grossman and Salas, and the highlighted sentence calls the end date the key design decision. Kirkpatrick's four levels plan measurement, and a budget led by $215,424 in participant wages reaches $423,380 per cohort.
GB542 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
Instructors grading a GB542 program design look for transfer to the job treated as a design problem, not an afterthought. A precise audience profile earns points because it shapes every later choice. Objectives written as observable performances show the design can be tested. Week ranges and time shares with reasons show the structure was planned. A transfer section that turns each factor of a named model into a specific design choice shows depth. Timing the program's end to the job's start shows practical insight. Measurement planned before launch shows foresight. A budget that counts participants' wages shows honesty about cost. Baldwin and Ford, Blume and colleagues, Grossman and Salas, and Kirkpatrick are cited.
Common GB542 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB542 Unit 5 designs describe course content in detail and say little about how learners will use it afterward. Others write objectives as topics, such as understand process control, which cannot be observed or tested. A frequent gap is timing: training completed long before the job begins loses much of its value, and the design should say when it ends and why. Some writers leave participants' wages out of the budget, often the largest cost. Profile the audience, write performance objectives, structure the time with reasons, organize transfer by a named model, plan measurement at several levels and build a complete budget. Session-by-session agendas can go in an appendix if the prompt asks.
Get a GB542 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Development prompts vary from leadership programs to technical upskilling. Send the Unit 5 brief, the rubric and a description of the audience your section names, including their current roles and what they must be able to do afterward; a program design with transfer built into its structure is written within 24-48h. The first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB542 papers and MBA samples
- GB542 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB542 Unit 2: Capability Gap Analysis
- GB542 Unit 3: Talent Segmentation Memo
- GB542 Unit 4: Workforce Plan
- GB542 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB542 Unit 7: Knowledge Transfer Plan
- GB542 Unit 8: Succession Bench Review
- GB542 Unit 9: Learning Evaluation Report
- GB542 Unit 10: Talent Strategy Report
- GB541 Unit 5: Case Analysis
- GB534 Unit 5: Attitude Measurement Exercise
- GB533 Unit 5: Compensation Plan Proposal
GB542 Unit 5 questions, answered
How detailed should the program schedule be?
Detailed enough to show the proportions and the sequence, not every session. This design gives week ranges for each phase and the share of time spent in classroom, simulator and pilot line. Session-level agendas belong in an appendix if the prompt asks for them. The reasoning behind the proportions matters more than the calendar itself.
Is Baldwin and Ford the only transfer model?
No. Holton's learning transfer system and Broad and Newstrom's before, during and after matrix appear in many readings. The design here uses Baldwin and Ford because its three factors map cleanly onto selection, program structure and the return to work. Use whichever your course introduces, and show each factor producing a concrete design choice.
Does the design need a budget?
Usually a summary one. This design lists simulator licensing, coach time, participants' pay for hours spent off the production floor, and design effort, because those figures feed the evaluation in a later unit. Leaving out participants' wages is the common error, since that line is often the largest cost in any technical program run during working hours.
Where can I find a free GB542 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB542 Unit 5 development program design for continuous-process technicians at a composite adhesives maker, with objectives, structure, transfer design, measurement, costs and APA 7 references.
Why does the program end one week before the line starts?
Skills learned for equipment that is not yet running fade while people wait. Ending the program just before startup means technicians use what they learned immediately, with coaches still on each crew.