The last time I had attended an interview was back in 2016 until this one — I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I came prepared with a presentation on a Quality Management System Framework. It was the same model I had once designed for my previous organisation — an “operating system” for quality, defining how things should be done to maintain consistency, control, and continuous improvement across the organisation. I tweaked it slightly to suit the business model of the organisation I was interviewing for, but the essence remained: a system built on structure, clarity, and purpose.
What unfolded that day was less of a formal interview and more of a professional exchange — almost like a discussion between client and consultant. They asked about the structure, localisation, blueprint turnaround, and training plans. We spoke in depth about how such a framework could be adapted to sustain organisational growth. By the end, I realised the conversation had shifted — it was no longer about what I knew, but how I thought.
Two weeks later, I received a call: an offer was confirmed. In November that year, I joined the organisation as a Senior Executive.
At that time, the organisation was undergoing a qualification quality review for its flagship programme. It was a critical phase — one that demanded both restructuring and rebuilding. Among the top priorities was developing the organisation’s very own Qualification Framework. As a junior staff member, I wasn’t in a position to lead such a major initiative. But I was in the best position to learn. So, I observed — how decisions were made, how expertise was gathered, and how a framework slowly took shape from ideas, discussions, and documentation.
It also became an opportunity for me to reflect on the educational theories I had encountered during my years in academia and see how they came alive in practice.
Step 1: Set the Purpose
The process began, as it always should, with purpose. A few questions guided our early discussions:
- Why should this qualification exist?
- What gaps is it addressing?
- What outcomes should it deliver for the industry?
This step resonated strongly with Ralph Tyler’s (1949) Objective Model, which emphasises that curriculum development must begin with clear purposes and aims. Tyler believed every element of a curriculum should serve a defined educational objective.
In our case, the purpose was clear and noble:
“To professionalise the banking sector through education that mirrors real practice.”
That clarity anchored every decision thereafter. It shaped not only what we built, but why it mattered. Through this exercise, we also identified five key areas in banking that would form the curriculum’s specialisations (domains).
Step 2: Diagnose Before Design
The second step was understanding the industry’s needs — a process that echoed Hilda Taba’s (1962) Grassroots Approach, which begins with diagnosis before design.
We conducted a comprehensive Learning Needs Analysis (LNA), reaching out to banks through the Human Resource Networking Group to form an Industry Curriculum Committee. This committee became our compass — comprising experts from the five key domains in banking: Credit, Risk, Audit, Compliance, and Anti-Money Laundering.
We didn’t start with assumptions; we started with listening – Surveys gave us data, but conversations gave us context.
The industry revealed long-standing skill gaps and helped us see the curriculum not as a product but as a bridge — connecting academic learning with workplace realities. This diagnostic phase was crucial. It embodied Taba’s principle that curriculum should grow out of real needs rather than top-down mandates.
Step 3: Build the Structure
Once the needs were clear, we began constructing the curriculum structure — defining domains, levels, and progression pathways.
Every framework needs a skeleton. For us, that meant categorising competencies into clusters such as Banking Operations, Strategy, Ethics, and the five key domains, each with distinct learning outcomes mapped to professional levels — from foundation, intermediate to advanced suiting the needs of the professionals at entry levels to senior executives.
This aligns with the systemic approach advocated by Tyler and later reinforced by UNESCO’s Curriculum Framework Guidelines, which stress coherent progression across levels.
This structure brought clarity. It allowed us to see how each learning area connected to the next — ensuring continuity and preventing fragmentation.
Step 4: Curate the Learning Outcomes
Translating needs into learning outcomes was perhaps the most intellectually demanding part of the process.
It was no longer enough for learners to know — they had to apply, demonstrate, and internalise what they learned. We shifted from knowledge-based learning to competency-based outcomes, crafting statements such as:
“Apply risk assessment tools to daily credit operations.”
“Demonstrate compliance aligned with regulatory expectations.”
This reflected Biggs’ (1996) Constructive Alignment theory and Bloom’s Taxonomy — the idea that learning outcomes, teaching activities, and assessments must align to create meaningful learning.
Coming from an academic background myself, I was very familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy and how it guides the progression from remembering to creating. But what came naturally to me as a lecturer was, understandably, less intuitive to our industry experts. For them, “real life doesn’t roll the same way.”
That tension — between academic precision and industry realism — became one of our greatest challenges. Thankfully, our consultant from the UK, helped us bridge the two schools of thought. Together, we translated academic rigour into practical relevance, ensuring that our outcomes were not just pedagogically sound but operationally meaningful.
The outcomes became our north star, ensuring every module, every assessment, and every resource pointed toward a shared goal, ensuring every module, every assessment, and every resource pointed toward a shared goal.
Step 5: Collaborate and Iterate
Framework design is never a solo act. We worked closely with our consultant in the UK and a curriculum committee of C-suite officers from across the sector.
Because of time zone differences, our meetings often stretched late into the night. I still remember drafting notes and recommendations past midnight, catching up with Edinburgh just as their workday began. It was an iterative process — strategy one day, refinement the next — reflecting Lawrence Stenhouse’s (1975) Process Model, which views curriculum not as a static product but as an evolving dialogue of design, discussion, and reflection.
During that time, it was already 2020 — and I was pregnant with my first child. Nights were long and often blurred between work and motherhood-in-waiting. I would read discussion notes, meeting minutes, module outlines, study text transcripts, and passcard drafts over and over again, determined to get every detail right. Some of my colleagues would joke that my baby would be a “QQR baby,” named after our Qualification Quality Review project, because she quite literally breathed and absorbed its context from the womb.
Looking back, I smile at the truth in that jest — she did grow with the framework. And perhaps that’s what this journey symbolised: creation in its purest sense, both personal and professional. Through that process, I learned that collaboration builds ownership. The more stakeholders contribute to a framework, the stronger their belief in its relevance and sustainability.
Step 6: Design the Learning Experience
Once the structure and outcomes were set, the next challenge was translating the framework into tangible learning experiences.
This phase involved designing learning modules, assessment blueprints, and trainer guides that aligned with the overall purpose. We asked critical questions:
- What methods best support the desired outcomes?
- How can learning be experiential rather than theoretical?
- What assessments best mirror real-world application?
At times, it felt like being back in the classroom again, being learner-focused, ensuring every activity, reading, and evaluation had a visible link to the intended competency.
One of the most meaningful milestones came with the publication of the official textbook — developed to serve as both a learning and assessment reference. In an age of information overload, the e-book offered a single source of truth — credible, curated, and consistent. It reflected Stenhouse’s belief that curriculum materials should empower teachers (and in our case, facilitators and learners) to engage critically and reflectively with the subject matter.
Among the modules I helped develop with our subject matter experts was Ethics — a topic that, while essential, can be notoriously dry and heavily regulated. We wanted to make it come alive. So instead of presenting abstract theories, we embedded ethical dilemmas into branching scenarios, allowing learners to ‘experience’ decision-making in a safe, simulated environment.
Instead of simply reading about right and wrong, learners faced realistic situations drawn from the banking context — conflicts of interest, confidentiality breaches, or client relationship pressures. Each decision point led to different outcomes, mirroring the real consequences of professional judgment.
This approach transformed Ethics from a compliance subject into a space for critical thinking and ethical reflection, reinforcing the organisation’s goal of promoting professionalism through not just knowledge, but behavioural accountability.
Through that experience, I learned the value of accuracy without losing engagement — ensuring rigour while designing for real learning. It reaffirmed that a curriculum framework, much like a quality management system, is only as good as its implementation strategy. A well-written blueprint means little without effective delivery mechanisms, engaging content, and clear accountability.
The publication of the e-book marked more than the completion of a resource — it symbolised the framework coming to life, bridging policy with practice.
Step 7: Sustain Through Quality
Quality assurance was at the heart of everything. We built mechanisms for document control, versioning, and review cycles — ensuring every decision was justified, recorded, and traceable.
In a fast-evolving industry like banking, where regulatory changes are constant, documentation became our anchor — preserving institutional memory and protecting the integrity of knowledge. This step mirrored Deming’s PDCA Cycle (Plan–Do–Check–Act), the same used in quality management. As the philosophy applies the same in curriculum design – we plan the framework, implement it, evaluate it, and refine it continuously. Quality is not compliance — it’s continuity. Updates should be intentional and validated, not reactionary.
When we reached this stage, I thought the process was complete. Little did I know, since this qualification was an upgrade from an existing one, transitioning learners from the old to the new was among the hardest parts.
This was where my campus collaborator experience proved invaluable. Back in my earlier work on campus expansion projects, I had led numerous mapping exercises — aligning curricula against multiple frameworks to standardise credit transfers and strengthen institutional value propositions. That practice of balancing structure, equity, and business needs became my anchor here.
We needed to map every module, credit, and outcome to ensure no learner was disadvantaged. This required not just academic precision but empathy — recognising that behind every qualification is a person whose time and effort must be honoured. Together, we developed a Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) policy that acknowledged both experiential and educational pathways, aligning the curriculum to allow fair and direct transfer where possible. It wasn’t just a technical migration — it was a human transition. And empathy, once again, became the most powerful form of quality assurance.
By 2022, after years of drafting, refining, and validating, the qualification framework was officially launched.
Looking back, I realised that developing a curriculum framework is both science and art.
- The science lies in theories, alignment, and measurable outcomes.
- The art lies in empathy, collaboration, and foresight.
And if I were to summarise what I’ve learned, this journey has been both an emotional and professional roller coaster. With tight timelines and a full table of stakeholders — from the central bank to C-suite officers, retired banking leaders, industry practitioners, and the UK professional body accrediting the qualification — everyone involved was racing against time to make things happen.
Through it all, one lesson stayed with me: stay intact, and when in crisis, be tactful. Because when you’re navigating complexity with many voices at the table, composure and clarity become your strongest forms of leadership.
Also, the launch of the framework is not the only good news that was carved that year – at the end of 2021, I also welcomed my baby girl into the world — and soon after, I was promoted to Assistant Manager. It felt as though life had come full circle — a beautiful reminder that growth, in all its forms, happens when we stay grounded, grateful, and purposeful. Alhamdulillah.
Clarity. Continuity. Care.
Leave a Reply