Learning that Sticks — Win the Meridian Renewal at Catalyst

A four-round, advanced executive-education design simulation set inside Catalyst Learning Partners, the custom unit of a top-tier U.S. business school in Miami ($14.2M revenue, 28% margin, 11 directors, 60 contracted faculty). Meridian Energy — a $6B utility and Catalyst's second-largest account ($1.6M over three years) — has frozen all L&D spend.

Its new CHRO gives Catalyst one shot: design ONE flagship program for 120 leaders, deliver it inside a $480,000 all-in cap and a 10-week launch, and prove it moved the business. Catalyst has already pre-committed $90,000 of design time; if the program is declined or fails, that cost is sunk and the unit misses its margin target.

A program that scores 4.7/5 on satisfaction but cannot show a behavior-change or ROI signal loses the renewal just as surely as one participants disliked.

Playing the Program Director, you (1) DIAGNOSE — the CHRO names three competing challenges (frontline-to-enterprise leadership, digital & AI adoption, cross-business-unit collaboration) and refuses to pick; you choose ONE center of gravity and name the target behavior and its leading indicator, because chasing all three at $4,000/participant changes none deeply enough to measure; (2) DESIGN the delivery model from a costed format menu (2-day intensive $165k, blended 8-week $210k, action-learning + coaching $240k, self-paced digital + AI sims $95k, manager-as-multiplier $130k) plus add-ons (coach pairs $60k, real business project $55k, spaced reinforcement $25k, peer-practice lab $40k), reserving budget for measurement instead of buying a single high-energy event that the forgetting curve erases; (3) COMMIT a Kirkpatrick measurement plan funding Behavior (Level 3) and Results (Level 4), choosing a comparison logic and a Phillips ROI isolation method, spending the recommended $60k–$80k; and (4) DEFEND the day-120 results to a skeptical CHRO and CFO — separating what the program caused from what it merely correlates with, refusing to overclaim, and recommending renew / redesign / decline.

The math rewards focus, transfer-of-learning design, funded behavior/results measurement, and a defensible isolated ROI; it punishes the five classic errors — doing everything, starving measurement, event-thinking, overclaiming ROI, and treating AI adoption as a tools-training problem. Final KPIs track Behavior Change Index, Transfer Strength, Credibility, and Budget committed against the $480,000 cap.

An advanced simulation for participants used to working with the main frameworks and trade-offs of the subject, designed for executive education and experienced professionals.