| Course | HRM 552 Organizational Training and Development (HRM/552) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Training intervention design |
| Length | about 1,247 words, 5 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HRM 552 Week 3
Practice on Real Claims, Peer Coaches and a Sandbox: Designing the Training and Development Interventions for Bayou Coastal's Adjusters
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
HRM/552: Organizational Training and Development
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Bayou Coastal Insurance, its costs and program details are composites written for a model paper.
Bayou Coastal Insurance, the composite Baton Rouge property and casualty insurer, found in its Week 1 performance analysis that about 1.5 days of a 9-day increase in claim cycle time came from adjusters not using key features of a new claims platform. Leadership approved workload, authority and incentive changes and asked HR to design training for the real skill gaps. Week 2's theory review produced design principles: start with real claims, practice with errors, use peers, reinforce on the job and space learning over time. A training design is a set of bets about how people will learn and what will help them use the learning on Monday morning, and each bet should be backed by evidence. This paper designs the intervention.
Target Learners
The program serves 240 field and desk adjusters, 30 supervisors and the 12 payments specialists who interact with adjusters in the platform. Adjusters range from new hires to veterans with more than 20 years. A skills check given to all adjusters showed that 40 percent did not use automated document requests, 55 percent did not use diary reminders and 30 percent could not reassign claims within the platform.
Learning Objectives
After the program, adjusters will send automated document requests on at least 90 percent of eligible claims, set diary reminders on all open claims, reassign claims correctly within 24 hours of a coverage change and use the dashboard to identify their claims aging over 10 days each morning. Supervisors will review aging dashboards weekly with each adjuster and coach on platform use. Each objective names an observable behavior that can be measured in the platform's data.
The Design Model
The program follows the ADDIE model: analysis, completed in Week 1; design, in this paper; development of materials over six weeks; implementation over three months; and evaluation, planned now and reported in Week 6. Salas et al. (2012) emphasized that effective training requires attention to what happens before, during and after training, not only to the event itself.
Delivery Methods
The design is blended. Short online modules of 10 to 15 minutes explain each feature and why it matters, using claims the adjusters recognize. A sandbox, a copy of the platform loaded with 50 realistic test claims, allows practice without risk. Team sessions of 90 minutes, led by peer coaches, work through difficult cases. Pooling studies of online and classroom courses, Sitzmann et al. (2006) showed that web-based instruction was slightly more effective than classroom instruction for teaching declarative knowledge and that blended designs outperformed classroom alone.
Practice With Errors
The sandbox claims include planted problems: missing documents, a coverage change that requires reassignment, a duplicate claim. Adjusters are encouraged to explore and make mistakes, then discuss what happened. Keith and Frese (2008) found that error management training improved transfer to new tasks, so this design prepares adjusters for unfamiliar claims they will meet on the job.
Spacing the Learning
Rather than one day, the program spreads over six weeks: one online module and one 30-minute sandbox exercise each week, plus three team sessions. Cepeda et al. (2006) reviewed hundreds of studies and concluded that the same amount of study yields more lasting memory when it is divided into sessions separated by days than when it is crammed into one sitting. Spacing also lets adjusters apply each feature on live claims between sessions.
Peer Coaches
Twenty adjusters who already use the platform well, identified from system data, will serve as peer coaches after a two-day coaching course. Social learning research suggests that respected peers are powerful models, so the coaches turn the informal learning that spread workarounds into a channel for correct practice. Coaches receive four hours a week of reduced caseload for the three months.
Different Starting Points
Veteran adjusters know claims deeply but may resist new tools; new adjusters know the platform better but not claims. Veterans start with modules showing how features save time on complex claims, and new adjusters are paired with veterans for claims judgment. A pretest lets adjusters skip modules they have already mastered.
Supervisor Support for Transfer
Blume et al. (2010) pooled many studies and reported that the work environment, especially supervisor and peer support, was strongly related to transfer of training. Supervisors will complete their own training first, receive a guide for weekly dashboard reviews and recognize adjusters who adopt the features. The new bonus metrics from Week 1, based on cycle time and accuracy, reinforce correct use.
Job Aids
One-page guides and in-platform tips will show steps for each feature at the moment of need. Job aids reduce reliance on memory for infrequent tasks such as reassignment after a coverage change.
Accessibility and Accommodations
Online modules will be captioned and screen-reader compatible. Adjusters may request accommodations such as extended time or alternative formats. Field adjusters will be able to complete modules on tablets during downtime.
The Development Track
Beyond the skill gaps, the division needs future team leads, since 8 of 30 supervisors are near retirement. A nine-month development track for 15 senior adjusters will include leadership workshops, a stretch assignment leading a peer coaching group, mentoring by a claims manager and a capstone project improving one part of the claims process. This builds the division's capacity to sustain change.
Piloting and Revising
The first wave of 80 adjusters will be treated as a pilot. Coaches will collect feedback after each session, and the design team will review sandbox results and platform data weekly. If a module is not producing the intended behavior, such as diary reminder use staying flat, the team will revise it before the second wave. Building revision into the schedule follows the action research cycle from Week 2 and keeps the program from locking in early mistakes.
Protecting Time for Learning
Adjusters cannot learn while carrying 180 claims. Training will begin only after temporary adjusters bring caseloads closer to 120, and each adjuster's weekly practice time will be blocked on the calendar and protected from new assignments. Supervisors will be measured partly on whether their teams complete the program, which signals that leadership treats learning as part of the job.
Schedule
Development of modules and the sandbox takes six weeks. Supervisor and coach training follows in weeks seven and eight. Adjuster training runs from week nine to week 14 in three waves of 80. The development track begins in month four.
Budget
Instructional design and sandbox development cost about $95,000. Coach release time costs about $70,000. Adjuster time, averaging eight hours each over six weeks, costs about $85,000. The development track costs about $45,000, and materials and administration $15,000. The total is about $310,000. If the program recovers 1.5 days of cycle time, it addresses about $800,000 of the gap's annual cost.
Evaluation Plan
Evaluation will measure reactions after each session, learning through sandbox assessments, behavior through platform data on feature use and results through cycle time and complaints. Data will be compared with a baseline, and the third wave will serve as a comparison group for the first two during rollout. Results will be reported in Week 6.
Conclusion
The redesigned program replaces a one-day lecture with six weeks of blended, spaced learning built around real claims, deliberate errors and peer coaching, supported by supervisors, job aids and aligned incentives. A development track builds future leaders. Each choice follows from the needs analysis and from research on training effectiveness and transfer.
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
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354
Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.59
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
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623-664. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x
What the HRM 552 Week 3 instructions ask
For the third week of HRM 552, students typically design a training and development intervention based on earlier analysis. Common requirements include learning objectives written in measurable terms, selection of delivery methods with justification, the sequence and schedule of activities, strategies to support transfer to the job, roles for supervisors and peers, accommodations for different learners, a budget and a plan for evaluation. Many prompts ask students to use an instructional design model such as ADDIE. Ground each design choice in the needs analysis and in training research, show how transfer will be supported and cite sources in APA format.
How this HRM 552 Week 3 example is built
Adjusters who missed key platform features in a one-day lecture need a different kind of training, and the paper designs it from the skill gaps found in Week 1. It writes objectives tied to behaviors such as using automated document requests on every eligible claim. It chooses a blended design: short online modules, a practice sandbox loaded with realistic claims, spaced team sessions and peer coaches. Practice includes deliberate errors, following error management research. Supervisors receive a guide to reinforce new skills. A separate development track prepares senior adjusters to lead teams. The paper estimates costs at about $310,000, compares them with the value of the cycle time the training should recover, plans a rollout in three waves and sets evaluation measures for Week 6.
HRM 552 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
An effective intervention design links every element to the needs analysis and to research on what makes training work. Faculty credit measurable objectives, delivery methods chosen for reasons rather than convenience, practice that resembles the job and a serious plan for transfer that includes supervisors and the work environment. Strong papers use evidence on spacing, blended learning and error management, address different learner groups and include a realistic budget and schedule. Planning evaluation from the start, with measures tied to objectives, shows design maturity. Clear organization and APA citations complete a top paper. Faculty also look for realism about employee time, since a design that asks busy adjusters for 20 hours of training during a backlog will not survive contact with operations, and for a rollout plan that lets the organization learn from the first group before training everyone.
HRM 552 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
Students often design training around topics rather than behaviors. Write objectives that say what learners will do on the job. Another gap is choosing methods by habit, such as lectures or e-learning, without explaining why. Justify each. Students also neglect transfer, the step where most training fails. Plan supervisor support, practice and reinforcement. Avoid one-time events; spread learning over time. Remember that experienced and new employees need different starting points. Budget realistically, including employee time. Finally, design evaluation measures now, not after delivery, so you can show whether the program worked. Pilot with one group first and revise before the full rollout.
Related HRM 552 sample papers
Other HRM 552 week samples
- HRM 552 Week 1: Performance Analysis
- HRM 552 Week 2: Learning and OD Theories
- HRM 552 Week 4: Planning for Change and Resistance
- HRM 552 Week 5: Employee Relations
- HRM 552 Week 6: Evaluating Organizational Development
More MBA sample papers
- HRM 546 Week 3: Development, Accommodation and Leave
- HRM 548 Week 3: Selection Methods
- HRM 595 Week 3: Gap Analysis
- MGT 521 Week 3: Decision Making With Incomplete Information
HRM 552 Week 3 questions, answered
What does HRM 552 Week 3 usually cover?
It usually covers designing training and development interventions: objectives, delivery methods, practice, scheduling, transfer support, supervisor roles, budgets and evaluation plans based on a needs analysis.
Where can I find a free HRM 552 Week 3 sample paper?
A full training design for an insurer's claims adjusters, with notes on each design choice, is presented on this page. Your own design assignment can begin from a free draft written to your prompt.
What is transfer of training?
The extent to which learners apply what they learned in training on the job and keep using it over time, influenced by training design, learner characteristics and support in the work environment.
Is online training as effective as classroom training?
Research comparing them finds web-based instruction can be as effective or slightly more effective for teaching knowledge, and blended designs combining online and in-person elements often perform best.
Why should training include errors?
Error management training, which lets learners make and learn from mistakes during practice, has been shown to improve transfer to new situations compared with training that avoids errors.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All HRM 552 week samples · All courses