Overview
Most curriculum problems are visible only at program level: two courses teach the same regression unit while nobody teaches academic writing; a capstone expects research skills no earlier course introduces; the credit load in semester three is double the others. Course-by-course revision rarely fixes these, because nobody owns the whole picture. Our work starts at that whole-program level.
We use constructive alignment (John Biggs's principle that outcomes, learning activities and assessment should point in the same direction) as the organizing logic. Program learning outcomes are written first, mapped to the relevant level of your national qualifications framework or the European Qualifications Framework, then distributed across courses with an explicit Introduced–Developed–Mastered progression. Credits and student workload are checked against your credit system, whether ECTS, US semester credit hours or a national scheme.
The engagement is collaborative: your faculty own the disciplinary content and the final decisions. We facilitate the design workshops, draft and redraft the documents, and prepare the program specification in the format your senate, curriculum committee or ministry requires. The result is a program that you can explain, deliver and later evidence in accreditation or program review.
Who it’s for and the problems it solves
This is for you if you are…
- Deans and program directors launching a new bachelor's, master's or professional program
- Departments redesigning an existing program after a program review, accreditation finding or falling enrollment
- Private universities and new institutions preparing program files for a ministry or national agency license
- Training centers and professional bodies converting short courses into credit-bearing or stackable awards
- Quality assurance offices that want a consistent program-specification template across faculties
Common problems we help with
- Program learning outcomes are vague ('understand', 'be aware of') and cannot be assessed
- Nobody can show which courses develop which outcomes, so gaps and overlaps go unnoticed
- Credit values were inherited and do not reflect actual student workload
- The approval committee returned the proposal asking for market need, resourcing or framework alignment evidence
- Employers and alumni say graduates lack skills the program claims to develop
- Faculty disagree about priorities and the design process has stalled
What’s included — and what isn’t
Included
- Discovery review of existing documents: program specification, course descriptors, review reports, employer or alumni feedback
- Stakeholder input design: short employer, alumni and student consultations or a structured survey
- Graduate profile and 6–12 program learning outcomes written with measurable verbs and aligned to the target qualifications-framework level
- Curriculum map showing each course's contribution to each outcome at Introduced, Developed or Mastered level
- Program structure: core, electives, pathways or minors, prerequisites and sequencing, capstone or work-based component
- Credit and workload model (for example ECTS or credit hours) with contact, guided and independent study hours
- Assessment strategy at program level: balance of methods, where each outcome is assessed summatively
- Course descriptor templates and first drafts for new or substantially changed courses, completed with your subject specialists
- Program specification and approval dossier in your institution's or agency's format
- Crosswalk to accreditation criteria where relevant (for example ABET student outcomes or AACSB assurance of learning goals)
Not included
- Deciding disciplinary content for your faculty — subject specialists own the syllabus content and final approval
- Submitting the proposal on your behalf or representing the institution to a ministry or agency
- Promising program approval, licensing or accreditation, which rest with your governance bodies and external agencies
- Writing complete teaching materials for every course (available separately as course development)
What you receive
- Discovery memo
- A short diagnosis of the current program or proposal: strengths, gaps, overlaps, workload anomalies and the decisions the design team needs to make.
- Program learning outcomes and graduate profile
- A finalized outcome set with the framework level each targets and a note on how each can be assessed.
- Curriculum map
- A course-by-outcome matrix (spreadsheet and one-page visual) with I/D/M levels, highlighting unsupported outcomes and redundant coverage.
- Program structure and credit model
- Semester-by-semester structure, prerequisites, elective rules and a workload table that reconciles credits with hours.
- Approval dossier
- Program specification, course descriptors, rationale and resourcing sections formatted to your committee or agency template, ready for your internal review.
- Handover pack
- Editable templates, the design decision log and guidance for maintaining the map when courses change.
How it works
Discovery
Document review and interviews with the dean, program lead and a few faculty to agree scope, constraints (credit limits, regulations, staffing) and timeline.
Design workshops
Two to four facilitated sessions, on-site or online, to agree the graduate profile, outcomes and program architecture. Disagreements are recorded with options rather than forced.
Drafting
We draft outcomes, the map, structure and credit model, then circulate them to the design team for written comments.
Validation
A review round with wider faculty and, where useful, an external academic or employer reader. We revise and log each change.
Approval documents and handover
We assemble the dossier in your template, brief the program lead for committee questions and hand over editable files.
Frameworks and design tools we use
- Constructive alignment
- Outcomes, teaching activities and assessment designed together so students are taught and assessed on what the program promises.
- Qualifications frameworks
- Level descriptors from your national framework, the European Qualifications Framework or the QF-EHEA cycle descriptors (Dublin Descriptors) used to calibrate outcome demand.
- Bloom's revised taxonomy and SOLO
- Used to check that outcome verbs rise in cognitive demand from early to final years rather than repeating 'describe' and 'explain'.
- Curriculum mapping (I/D/M)
- A matrix recording where each outcome is introduced, developed and mastered, and where it is summatively assessed.
- Credit and workload modeling
- Student workload estimated from contact, guided and independent hours; in ECTS systems a full-time year is 60 credits, with hours per credit set nationally (commonly 25–30).
- Accreditation crosswalks
- Mapping program outcomes to external criteria such as ABET student outcomes or AACSB learning goals so later evidence collection is straightforward.
New program or redesign: what changes
A new program needs a case as well as a curriculum: evidence of demand, a fit with institutional mission, a staffing and resource plan, and differentiation from similar programs nearby. We help structure that rationale around the evidence you have and flag where approval bodies usually push back.
A redesign is usually about coherence. We map the current curriculum first, including what is actually assessed rather than what descriptors claim, so the team can see the program as students experience it before deciding what to change.
Writing program outcomes that survive assessment
A good program outcome names an observable capability at the right level, in a context: 'Design and evaluate a data-driven marketing plan for a real organization' can be assessed; 'Understand marketing' cannot. We keep the set small enough that each outcome can be assessed at least once at mastery level, because every extra outcome is a future evidence burden in accreditation and program review.
- One capability per outcome, with an action verb matched to the level
- Context or standard of performance where it matters
- Transferable skills (communication, ethics, teamwork) expressed as assessable outcomes, not slogans
- Consistency with the qualifications-framework level of the award
Getting faculty buy-in
Curriculum change fails more often from politics than from design. Our workshops use evidence (the map, workload data, stakeholder feedback) to move discussions away from course ownership and toward student progression. Where views genuinely differ, we present options with consequences so the program lead or dean can decide transparently.
What the work can look like
Illustrative example — fictional data
Illustrative excerpt: curriculum map finding for a redesign
A fictional business school redesigning a 180-ECTS bachelor's program with 34 courses and 9 program outcomes. Numbers are invented to show what a mapping finding looks like.
Coverage finding
Outcome PLO6 (communicate analysis to professional audiences) is introduced in 11 courses but assessed at mastery level in none; the capstone rubric does not include a communication criterion. Recommendation: add a communication criterion to the capstone rubric and designate one year-two course for developmental feedback.
Workload finding
Semester 3 courses total an estimated 1,020 student hours against 750–900 expected for 30 ECTS. Two courses carry weekly assignments plus a project; consolidating assessment in one is proposed.
Decision for the design team
Option A merges two overlapping quantitative methods courses (frees 6 ECTS for an internship); Option B keeps both and differentiates content. Consequences for staffing and prerequisites are listed for each.
Illustrative example with invented numbers. A real map reflects your program, framework and regulations.
What you’ll need to provide
- Existing program specification, course descriptors and the latest review or accreditation report, if any
- Institutional and national regulations on credits, program length and approval procedure
- A named program lead and a design team with time allocated for workshops
- Any market, employer or enrollment data you already hold
- Target launch date and approval calendar (committee and ministry deadlines)
You don’t need everything ready to ask for a quote — tell us what you have and we’ll say what’s missing.
What affects price and turnaround
Price depends on
- New program versus redesign, and the number of courses and pathways involved
- Number of workshops and whether they are on-site or online
- Depth of stakeholder consultation (desk review only, interviews, or a survey)
- Whether course descriptors are drafted by us or only reviewed
- Format requirements of the approval body and number of review rounds
Turnaround depends on
- Faculty availability for workshops and comments, which usually sets the pace
- Your committee and ministry calendar; we plan backwards from submission deadlines
- Whether existing documents and data are available at kickoff
Every project is quoted individually. How we price our work.
Questions people ask before starting
Do you need subject experts in our discipline?
Your faculty provide the disciplinary expertise and make content decisions. Our role is design method, facilitation, documentation and framework alignment. Where an external subject reader is useful, for example for validation, we can help you define the brief, but we do not substitute for your academic judgment.
Can you align our program with both a national framework and an international accreditor?
Yes. A crosswalk table showing how each program outcome meets national descriptors and accreditation criteria is a common deliverable. Where the two pull in different directions (for example credit rules), we set out the options so you can decide.
Will the program be approved?
We cannot promise approval; that is decided by your governance bodies and, where relevant, the ministry or agency. We can make the dossier complete, consistent and easy to review, and prepare your program lead for likely questions.
How much faculty time does this take?
Typically a few workshop sessions for the design team plus written review of drafts. We do the drafting and consolidation so faculty time goes to decisions, not formatting.
We already have a curriculum; can you just audit it?
Yes. A mapping audit with a findings memo is a smaller engagement and is often the right first step before deciding whether a full redesign is needed.
Is our data confidential?
Yes. Program documents, enrollment data and internal reports are used only for the engagement, shared with the people you designate and returned or deleted at handover as agreed in the contract.