When content became a journey
Product and Retail teams understood what made a product successful. The learning experience did not translate that knowledge into a path suppliers could follow.
The problem
Training explained how to operate individual tools, but rarely why an action mattered, when it became relevant or how decisions across different functions connected. Suppliers could complete a task and still be unsure what to do next.
The strategic leap
I changed the organising logic of product education. Instead of structuring learning around internal tool ownership, I created a cross-functional architecture built around supplier goals, capability progression and meaningful next steps.
- GETTING STARTED
- PRODUCT SETUP
- CATALOGUE QUALITY
- DIAGNOSE AND FIX
- NEXT-STEP GUIDANCE
Key facts
- Organisation
- Global retail organisation
- My role
- Learning Experience Designer
- Ownership
- Research · Journey architecture · Product vision · UX · Content strategy · Technical writing · Adoption strategy
- Pilot
- 5 marketplaces
- Research
- ~1,000 survey responses
- Evolution
- 2021–January 2026
How the system worked
Shared product knowledge
The work began as a 2021 pilot across the five marketplaces supported by the participating Retail team. Teams already understood what made a product successful, but that knowledge was fragmented across functions and had not been translated into a path suppliers could follow. The pilot confirmed that the gap involved both missing content and the way existing training was connected.
Evidence and downstream impact
88.9%
Validated demand
Approximately 1,000 responses across five marketplaces in the one-off 2021 annual training survey immediately following the pilot.
+130.3%
Learning discovery
Combined clicks to the selected training modules increased 130.3% YoY following workflow integration.
#1
Library consumption
The journey became the most-visited topic among all topics in the learning library after its Q3 2023 launch.
Product adoption and operational-quality data provided an additional downstream view of the programme’s relevance.
13.4% of successful catalogue submissions were associated with tool-specific learning.
Listing-error rates moved from 34.7% to 28.1% in the measured EU cohort.
A separate analysis observed a movement from 35% to 26%.
These signals informed roadmap decisions and helped identify the boundary between a learning need and a product-maturity constraint. They were not treated as proof that learning was the sole cause of the operational change.
What began as a five-market learning pilot became a repeatable mechanism for designing curricula, identifying product dependencies and prioritising future investment.
Next case study
When a learning problem revealed a systems problem
A confusing learning request exposed competing mental models, inconsistent processes and a wider systems problem.
Signal pendingCase study in development