Design the Program

A Level-4 executive-education design simulation set at Atlântico Learning Partners, a Lisbon-based corporate-learning studio (EUR 6.8M revenue, 16% EBITDA) whose flagship promise is a contractual business-impact guarantee. On 14 September 2026 the firm receives a make-or-break closed-bid RFP from Banco Verde, a EUR 9-billion Iberian retail bank that has just merged two networks: 600 branch and area managers must shift from transactional supervision to advisory, data-driven coaching. The prior vendor was fired after a EUR 1.1M programme produced glowing satisfaction scores but ZERO movement on the three metrics the board tracks: +6 pp advisory cross-sell, −15% front-line attrition, and a manager NPS ≥ +30, all within nine months. The constraints are hard: a EUR 1,200,000 ceiling (no client co-funding, EUR 2,000 per learner), a maximum of 4 in-person days off the branch floor with peak Nov–Dec blocked, and a 30% (EUR 360,000) clawback plus loss of a EUR 3.4M three-cohort pipeline if targets miss. Over four rounds, playing the Atlântico design team, you: (1) diagnose the real capability gap using a learning-needs-analysis lens, separating the loudest stakeholder's request (product knowledge) from the board-metric behaviours (coaching) and naming the measurement baseline; (2) architect the format mix and allocate EUR 1.2M across in-person intensives, virtual-live cohorts, self-paced digital, manager-led practice, coaching circles, and the sustainment tail — trading scale against behaviour-change evidence under the budget and 4-day caps, and choosing whether to segment the 600 managers; (3) build a four-level Kirkpatrick/Phillips measurement plan with baseline, control, leading indicators, and a defensible projected ROI; and (4) set the fixed price and impact-guarantee terms and defend the design to a sceptical CLO and CFO. The engine prices every choice in EUR, days, and four indices — Behaviour-Change Evidence, Stakeholder Alignment, Measurement Credibility, and Budget & Time Fit. Wrong strategies underperform on purpose: designing to product knowledge repeats the failed vendor's mistake and moves no board metric; over-investing in in-person breaches the 4-day cap and the EUR 1.2M ceiling; measuring only satisfaction never reaches behaviour or business result; promising an indefensible ROI with no baseline or control walks into the EUR 360,000 clawback; starving the sustainment tail means transfer never happens and the 9-month metrics flatline; treating all 600 managers as one cohort wastes budget. Track the four indices, EUR spent vs EUR 1.2M, in-person days vs the 4-day cap, projected ROI, the bid decision, and whether the impact guarantee holds or triggers the clawback. Teaches outcome-based learning design, learning-needs analysis, the Kirkpatrick/Phillips evaluation hierarchy, 70-20-10 and the sustainment tail, modality cost-per-learner economics, and stakeholder co-creation.